text:
UNIVERSITY PARK - Penn State's running back situation is in good shape as the season approaches.
Starter Zach Zwinak has been cleared for contact drills in practice, so his left wrist does not appear to be a problem. Zwinak suffered the injury in the Blue-White Game and wore a red jersey for no contact early in training camp.
"He's doing well. He's ready to go," coach Bill O'Brien said. "He took the red jersey off, I think it was last week. He had the red jersey on and he was hitting guys and the [defensive backs], they were like, 'Coach, he has a red jersey on, so shouldn't he have that off if he's going to hit us?' So we decided to take it off."
The Nittany Lions have two options behind Zwinak in redshirt freshman Akeel Lynch and junior Bill Belton. The latter could turn out to be a major contributor after starting early last year before falling out of favor and barely playing at the end of the season.
"He's had a good camp. I just want him to keep it going," O'Brien said of Belton. "He's going to play a lot of football for us this year. He's worked hard, he's quicker, he's running the ball more decisively than he did last year, and he can catch the ball out of the backfield."
O'Brien has always spoken highly of Belton, even when the running back wasn't playing much and when he had to deal with academic issues over the summer.
"I've had a few heart-to-hearts with Billy," O'Brien said. "I really think a lot of Billy. I think Billy has a bright future. I really think he's a good kid."
Injury update
Safety Adrian Amos was wearing a red no-contact jersey Tuesday as he's dealing with hamstring and ankle problems.
"He's fine," O'Brien said. "We're just trying to limit the contact there."
Receiver Allen Robinson also has been dealing with a hamstring injury, but O'Brien said it's not a big deal. The coach knows he can't push his best players too hard in training camp, so he has picked spots to give them rest at times.
Right offensive tackle Adam Gress has been dealing with a knee issue but is still considered the frontrunner to start against Syracuse. If he can't go, converted tight end Garry Gilliam likely would step in.
Linebacker Ben Kline continues to deal with what O'Brien called a "shoulder deal." He's also doing limited contact work.
Tight end Brent Wilkerson underwent back surgery and is out "for a while," O'Brien said before adding the surgery "went well."
News and notes
n The Lions started working on Syracuse prep Tuesday.
n O'Brien had this intriguing comment about his team overall: "We're a totally different team than we were last year. We're doing a lot of different things. We're very, very different."
n One more item on the quarterback competition between Christian Hackenberg and Tyler Ferguson: "I've never had more fun coaching quarterbacks than I've had coaching these two guys," O'Brien said. "They're bright guys. They work at it, they compete in practice, they've got good demeanors, they've got good huddle command. I've had a lot of fun coaching both of these guys."


text:
|Back to Main Print This Page Email to a Friend
Pancreatic cancer is cancer that starts in the pancreas.
Pancreatic cancer; Cancer - pancreas
The pancreas is a large organ behind the stomach. It makes and releases enzymes into the intestines that help the body absorb food, especially fats. The pancreas also makes and releases insulin and glucagon. These are hormones that help the body control blood sugar level.
There are different types of pancreatic cancers. The type depends on the cell the cancer develops in. Examples include:
The exact cause of pancreatic cancer is unknown. It is more common in persons who:
Pancreatic cancer is slightly more common in women than in men. The risk increases with age. Family history of the disease also increases the chance of getting this cancer.
A tumor (cancer) in the pancreas may grow without any symptoms at first. This means the cancer is often advanced when it is first found.
Symptoms of pancreatic cancer include:
The doctor will perform a physical exam and ask about your symptoms. During the exam, the doctor may feel a lump (mass) in your abdomen.
Blood tests that may be ordered include:
Imaging tests that may be ordered include:
If tests confirm you have pancreatic cancer, more tests will be done to see if the cancer has spread. This is called staging. Staging helps guide treatment and gives you an idea of what to expect.
Treatment depends on the stage of the tumor.
Surgery may be done if the tumor has not spread or has spread very little. Along with surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy or both may be used.
When the tumor has not spread out of the pancreas but cannot be removed, chemotherapy and radiation therapy together may be recommended.
When the tumor has spread (metastasized) to other organs such as the liver, chemotherapy alone is usually used.
With advanced cancer, the goal of treatment is to manage pain and other symptoms. For example, if the tube that carries bile is blocked by the pancreatic tumor, a procedure to place a tiny metal tube (stent) may be done to open the blockage. This can help relieve loss of appetite, jaundice, and itching of the skin.
You can ease the stress of illness by joining a cancer support group. Sharing with others who have common experiences and problems can help you not feel alone.
Some patients with pancreatic cancer that can be surgically removed are cured. But in most patients the tumor has spread and cannot be completely removed at the time of diagnosis.
Chemotherapy and radiation are often given after surgery to increase the cure rate (this is called adjuvant therapy). For pancreatic cancer that cannot be removed completely with surgery or cancer that has spread beyond the pancreas, a cure is not possible. But chemotherapy can extend one's life.
Call for an appointment with your health care provider if you have:
Drebin JA, Sun W, Metz JM, Furth EE. Carcinoma of the pancreas. In: Abeloff MD, Armitage JO, Niederhuber JE, et al., eds. Abeloff's Clinical Oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2008:chap 85.
National Cancer Institute: PDQ Pancreatic Cancer Treatment. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute. Date last modified 06/12/2013. Accessed September 24, 2013.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Version 1.2013. Accessed September 24, 2013.
On a mission to heal body, mind and spirit

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Chris Mooney | April 6, 2012
By Chris Mooney • Friday, April 6, 2012 - 11:07
Yesterday, I appeared on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner to talk about The Republican Brain. It was largely an interview about what's going on with conservatives and science right now—why they distrust it so much–but S.E. Cupp, the conservative on the panel, called my argument "infuriating."
Then, she proceeded to attack climate science and the researchers who produce it—doing a very good job of proving my point about conservatives and science! Brad Johnson has provided a transcript at Think Progress (video below it):
CUPP: There have been, to quote Rick Santorum, phony studies on climate change. East Anglia University I should mention!
WAGNER: And that study –
CUPP: Every time science has been corrupted by politics, everyone in the scientific community should be worried!
I deliberately didn't answer Cupp's point about "East Anglia University" on the air. But let me answer it now.
First, the "ClimateGate" issue at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Center was about stolen emails, not "phony studies."
Second, conservatives did claim that the emails proved some sort of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of scientists. But the emails didn't actually show that. Multiple investigations (see a discussion here and here) in the wake of "ClimateGate" vindicated the scientists whose emails had been exposed, showing that these charges weren't valid.
Third and most important, the central conclusion of climate science—humans are causing global warming—was never at stake in "ClimateGate." The case for human-caused global warming depends on multiple independent lines of evidence, and the conclusion has been ratified by a much broader body of scientists than those principally involved in the "ClimateGate."
All of this has been said before, of course. And it isn't, frankly, very interesting.
What is interesting is that S.E. Cupp made these assertions, which have been so convincingly refuted. Clearly, they still float around the conservative ether, where "ClimateGate" is still considered to be the ultimate rebuttal to all things global warming-related.
Rush Limbaugh has cited "ClimateGate" in essentially the same way. And it is no doubt what Rick Santorum too had in mind in talking about "phony studies." So what's up with this? Why cite bogus charges that were long since refuted, and that even if accurate, wouldn't actually matter? Why seize on "ClimateGate," even though in an intellectual sense, doing so gets you nowhere?
Here's what I wrote back in June:
Remember what things were like before ["ClimateGate"] happened. We were coming off 2007, when Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. We'd just elected President Obama, who was backing cap-and-trade legislation and a Copenhagen deal. The science—and the policy—of global warming had all the momentum behind them. If you didn't believe that the problem was real and needed to be addressed, you were in a pretty difficult position.
ClimateGate was a true blessing in this regard for climate skeptics and deniers. It furnished a brand new excuse to dismiss it all. It was all a scam! …
So "ClimateGate" was seized upon—and then, to borrow a term from psychology, after "seizing" "freezing" may have occurred for some. Minds were made up, and no new evidence was admissible—because "ClimateGate" proved it was all a hoax. Thus, whenever global warming comes up, we now hear "ClimateGate" cited endlessly, as a way of shutting down further consideration—as a vindication, even. And it's completely baffling, if you know (as we all do) that the science of climate is as strong as it ever was, the issue didn't go away, and "ClimateGate" doesn't really have any substantive significance.
In other words, the people citing "ClimateGate" in this way simply may not have performed a complete, thorough, or accuracy-motivated information search. Rather, they seized on just enough information to reaffirm their beliefs. That they're nonetheless willing to make such grave and serious charges against scientific researchers—on such a weak basis–is why it is more than fair to point out that in the end, they are really just attacking and undermining science and scientists.
So thank you again, S.E. Cupp, for proving my point.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
I question whether Fairewinds
is a reliable source of such information. In any case the Japanese government still restricts access to those portions still having 20+ mSv/yr. Therefore the point is moot.
Again, I have no reason to trust any such estimates by Fairewinds. Union of Concerned Scientists appears quite reliable on matters nuclear.
UCS Recommendations? Read 'em & weep.
Since the UCS appeals more to your pro-nuke stance, David, you might just wanna read 'em & weep.
Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies
Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
While the exact value of these subsidies can be difficult to pin down, even conservative estimates add up to a substantial percentage of the value of the power nuclear plants produce—approaching or even exceeding 100 percent in the case of legacy subsidies and subsidies to new privately-owned reactors (see chart).
Nuclear subsidies effectively separate risk from reward, shifting the burden of possible losses onto the public and encouraging speculative investment. By masking the true cost of nuclear power, subsidies also allow the industry to exaggerate its economic competitiveness; consequently, they diminish or delay support for more economical and less risky alternatives like energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Most especially, the UCS recommendations to reduce taxpayer nuclear subsidies, to repeal nuclear tax breaks, to rollback nuclear construction-in-progress allowances, to eliminate nuclear cost-overruns paid by ratepayers, & to strip nuclear power from renewable energy standards.
Nuclear Power Subsidies: Report Recommendations
- Reduce, not expand, subsidies to the nuclear power industry.
- Award subsidies to low-carbon energy sources on the basis of a competitive bidding process across all competing technologies.
- Repeal decommissioning tax breaks and ensure greater transparency of nuclear decommissioning trusts (NDTs). Eliminating existing tax breaks for NDTs would put nuclear power on a similar footing with other energy sources.
- Roll back state construction-work-in-progress allowances and protect ratepayers against cost overruns by establishing clear limits on customer exposure.
- Nuclear power should not be eligible for inclusion in a renewable portfolio standard. Nuclear power is an established, mature technology with a long history of government support. Furthermore, nuclear plants are unique in their potential to cause catastrophic damage (due to accidents, sabotage, or terrorism); to produce very long-lived radioactive wastes; and to exacerbate nuclear proliferation.
Now that's what we're talkin' about.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
The US
federal government has supported considerable portions of the electric power industry since at least the 1930s. That is unlikely to soon change.
The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies
Of course, David, among other responsibilities to their citizens, the U.S. & Canadian & other progressive governments should provide public investment & incentivize private investment for new energy technologies & infrastructure. However, once those industries have scaled up & become mature, government subsidies & special tax treatments should be scaled back & phased out, rather than continued or even increased as has been the case for nuclear & big oil.
The Historical Role of Federal Subsidies in Shaping America's Energy Future
"In inflation-adjusted dollars, nuclear spending averaged $3.3 billion over the first 15 years of subsidy life, and O&G subsidies averaged $1.8 billion, while renewables averaged less than $0.4 billion."
Moot point?
Try telling that to all the 1.7 million Japanese men, women, & children whose lives and livelihoods were destroyed by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe for over a year now.
"The Japanese government and nuclear plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. [TEPCO] are struggling with the question of just how—and how much—to compensate the 1.7 million people whose lives and livelihoods were disrupted by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident more than a year ago."
$5.9 billion so far & that's just the beginning.
"Tepco already has paid ¥491.1 billion ($5.9 billion) to cover a quarter-million separate claims for evacuation costs, living expenses and lost income, among other things. Negotiations have just started on evaluating homes, farmland, fishing rights, and businesses that were damaged or rendered worthless."
And try telling your moot point to all the Japanese taxpayers who will have to pick up the tab for most if not all of the estimated $54.5 billion by next March.
"A government panel estimates Tepco will have to pay ¥4.5 trillion in compensation by the accident's second anniversary in March 2013. That figure could eventually grow by "several trillion yen," according to Standard & Poor's analyst Hiroki Shibata."
And try telling your moot point to all the TEPCO ratepayers who will have to pay much higher electric bills because of this quadruple nuclear catastrophe.
"The looming claim decisions have significant business and financial implications. The size of the payouts could boost electricity rates for companies and households in the Tokyo area and, depending on how much comes from government subsidies, could worsen Japan's fragile fiscal situation."
And try telling your moot point to all the Japanese families who will suffer even more.
Japan Tallies Upheaval's Toll http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304177104577311070878121072.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Your moot point brings your denial to new heights of insensitivity & arrogance, David, dispassionately speaking, of course.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Wrong again, on several points.
My point, which appears not to have been made in a comprehensible manner, remains that the radiological risks from the Fukushima Dai-ichi situation are quite small. It certainly is the case that it has highly disrupted Japan and its peoples. [Not to mention bankrupted Tepco, except the government won't let it fold.]
The aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake has had only a minor impact on plans for new NPPs in othr countries. For example, Vietnam has a Russian NPP under construction and the civil works for a Japanese NPP (I suppose the AP1000) has begun. Their third will be the South Korean design and then they'll go on to have 7 more NPPs. As another, India continues on their 44+ NPP plan. Also, UAE continues to have the South Koreans build 4 NPPs there while Jordan is selecting a vendor for their first NPP. Turkey is receiving a Russian NPP. And so it goes.
But in Japan there seems to be great resistance to turning back on their NPPs. So instead they are running up a significant trade deficit buying additional coal and LNG. Without the NPPs the forecast is for a 20% power shortfall this summer, which will bring even more hardship and to a large proportion of the Japanese.
The Fukushima Blues
Yes, David, once again you are wrong again on several, let's make that many points.
You clearly have disinformed & desensitized notions of what constitutes major costs & major risks & major impacts on dislocated populations & disrupted national economies & industry plans going forward. So allow us & the UCS – we know how much you like those guys – to put you on the logical & dispassionate path once again.
First, if not foremost, even after over 50 years of $300 billions of stateside taxpayer & ratepayer subsidies, nuclear power remains unviable in the present & more importantly in the future.
2.2. FIFTY YEARS OF SUBSIDIES (pp. 19 - 21)
"Industry advocates like to emphasize nuclear power's low operating costs as an indication of the technology's competitiveness. In addition to ignoring established subsidies to operating costs, the advocates also neglect to mention that building the existing reactor fleet has entailed massive capital costs and associated losses and write-downs. These costs—as much as $300 billion by some estimates (Schlissel et al. 2009)—have already been borne by investors and ratepayers for more than half a century."
Yet some – we'll logically include you – still insist that any nuclear subsides will be short-term. Fool us once, shame on you; fool us twice, ain't gonna happen.
"Some in the industry continue to claim that any subsidies for new nuclear power plants will be transitional. They argue that short-term subsidies will allow the industry to gain operational experience with new reactor designs, and that after these "first-of-a-kind" costs have been amortized, the industry will be cost-competitive. But the nuclear industry has been making the transitional-support argument since it rolled out the earliest civilian reactors."
In a nutshell, the generous subsidies to the nuclear power industry of $300 billion, historically speaking, are still going strong after 50 some years. So let's break it down for you:
"• Accident liability - Federal caps on liability from nuclear accidents were put in place in 1957 on a "temporary" basis, but they have been renewed ever since.
• Publicly funded research and development - Nuclear power captured almost 54 percent of all federal research dollars between 1948 and 2007 (Sissine 2008: 3) and nearly 40 percent of International Energy Agency (IEA) member-country energy research and development (R&D) between 1974 and 2007 (IEA 2009). While spending in the United States has begun to favor other energy technologies in recent years (spending through 1993, for example, was more than 60 percent—see Figure 1, p. 47), in aggregate the bulk of funding has gone to nuclear. At present, the sector remains the dominant recipient of government-financed R&D in many other countries as well …
• Capital subsidies - Construction and financing costs have been a problem for nuclear reactors since their inception. The major waves of domestic reactor construction were heavily subsidized through a mix of public supports, which included investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation, ratebasing of reactor costs, and recovery of construction interest from ratepayers prior to a plant's commencement of operations. At the back end, tax subsidies have reduced the cost of reactor decommissioning accruals.
• Nationalization of waste-management risks - The technical and financial risks of managing reactor and other fuel-cycle wastes tend to make investors skittish. These risks were effectively nationalized in the United States by means of a small fee on nuclear-generated electricity, thereby protecting plants at the expense of taxpayers. The governments of many other countries have also stepped in to absorb these risks at or below cost.
• Mining and enrichment - The U.S. government has managed uranium stockpiles since the industry's inception, and through 1966 immediately purchased all uranium as soon as it was mined (PNL 1978: 117). By 1971, the stockpile had reached 100 million pounds of U3O8, at which point the government began to sell some of it onto the market. Imported uranium was banned through 1975, and partially restricted through 1983 (PNL 1978: 124). In enrichment, the federal government historically took on all financial risk for building up capacity, and for many years it sold the enriched fuel to commercial reactors below cost. Below-cost sales appear to be a continuing issue today for some of the foreign enrichment companies as well. The U.S. enrichment picture, via the privatized U.S. Enrichment Corporation, now has a more complicated mix of policies that seem primarily aimed at keeping a U.S. firm in the enrichment market rather than keeping low-enriched uranium (LEU) prices low. Government subsidies to the sector globally, however, appear to spur overcapacity, generating artificially low fuel costs.
• Proliferation - Just as coal production generates carbon and other externalities that need to be integrated into pricing if economies are to make sound energy choices, the link between civilian nuclear power and nuclear weapons also cannot be ignored…."
Despite all this government largess with taxpayer & ratepayer money, nuclear power remains dispassionately uncompetitive to this very kilowatt-hour, what with all the cost-overruns, plant cancellations, & stranded assets down through the decades.
"Even with these subsidies, the nuclear industry has not been competitive. This fact is illustrated by the waves of very large write-offs of nuclear-related capital investment and the transfer of repayment liability away from investors. Reactor projects have been abandoned during construction in large numbers. Between 1972 and 1984, these cancellations cost $40 billion to $50 billion in today's dollars, largely borne by ratepayers or taxpayers rather than the reactor owners (Schlissel et al. 2009: 11). An additional $150 billion in cost overruns on completed plants also were passed onto ratepayers. Yet, problems remained. When electricity markets were deregulated, nuclear assets were among the most common uneconomic, or "stranded," assets. Nearly $110 billion (2007$) was transferred to ratepayers or taxpayers as charges independent of the nuclear power consumed (Seiple 1997). Stranded cost recovery for nuclear power brought the cost structure of the reactors down low enough for them to compete in deregulated power markets, largely by passing over-market generating-plant costs onto consumers in the form of transition charges."
Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf
As heard with higher frequency around the energy sector these days, it would've been cheaper to buy the electric power outright and give it away for free.
And we can ill-afford to make that same mistake again, for our children's sake if not ours.
No more denier-delay nonsense, Canman.
We have neither the time nor the disposition for any more denial & delay nonsense, while the fossil fuel extraction magnates rush to devastate our air & water & climate, & rape of our children's health & heritage, all for the sake of short-sighted mega-billion-dollar profits.
And nuclear's heydays are over, no small thanks to the exorbitant costs & risks of new plant construction & the devastating costs & risks of old plant catastrophic failures like the multiple explosions & three nuclear core meltdowns & spent fuel catastrophes at Fukushima Dai'ichi.
What we need are timely progressive policies to leverage our public investment & incentivize our private investment to rapidly deploy our renewable energy resources while accelerating the innovations & efficiencies of our renewable energy technologies, as Germany is already doing.
"German consumption of oil fell 3%, gas by 10.2%, lignite coal by 0.7% (although hard coal rose 3.7%), and nuclear by 22.9%. At the same time, use of renewable energy climbed by 4.1% and represented about 20% of the country's electricity and 10.8% of total energy in 2011."
German Energy Consumption Drops 4.8% in 2011, With Renewables Providing 20% of Electricity
"Just weeks after the solar industry installed the one millionth system in Germany, the country's solar trade association announced that the technology accounted for 3% of total energy generation in 2011 — increasing 60% over 2010 to 18.6 terawatt-hours (18.6 billion kilowatt-hours.)
Even with changes to the feed-in tariff that have reduced solar photovoltaic installations compared with previous boom years, the sector was still the fastest growing among all other renewable energy sectors in 2011, according to preliminary figures."
German Solar Output Increases by 60% in 2011
Policy debates
What would constitute a scientist engaging in a policy debate?
Scientists have testified before congressional committees, have contributed to many policy making bodies in the executive branch, have appeared on major news shows, regularly give talks to public audiences, and have even written a book or two.
I think that they have been very much engaged in the policy debate, though I would prefer to refer to it as policy formulation, as it doesn't involve CNN moderators.
Sorry about the bad link
Sorry about the bad link (must be an old page). Here's a page where the link works:
Ok, listened to the link (very bad audio). What am I supposed to be listening for? Can we cut to the chase? Where was the gasp moment?
I thought it was a good debate
I find Peter Huber's ideas interesting and think some of his more controversial claims merit further investigation. It's good to see two people with such differring veiws have such a civil debate.
Umm... you are totally
Umm… you are totally confused or ignorant or both.
First… if you want a Libertarian No government solution to this from a Republican Economist, watch this;
Second and most importantly. I want discussion on this serious and real issue. What deniers are engaged in, is the exact opposite. (Hint: I don't care what the solution is. I'm not freaking marxist. I don't want a mess for my kids to deal with.)
Geo engineering? I'm listening… Thanks to people like you, yourself, personally, this isn't even being discussed. Let alone invested in.
Here's another Green Freak for you to listen to… Bill Gates (hint: He's not known for his green or marxist leanings.);
I like Geoengineering
It seems to me that it is the alarmist that are freaking out over geoengineering ideas like that chapter in the Super Freakinomics book.
"It seems to me that it is
"It seems to me that it is the alarmist that are freaking out over geoengineering ideas like that chapter in the Super Freakinomics book. "
Never read it, can you provide a summary? A lot of conservatives and libertarians get really excited about geo-engineering; A technological solution to global warming, that means no tax, or ETS.
So far to date, I haven't seen anything that appears plausible or safe enough to run with, except maybe CO2 sequestering. But things like mirrors in space, aerosols in the sky or iron on the sea, seem the carry too many unknown risks.
"Geo engineering? I'm listening… Thanks to people like you, yourself, personally, this isn't even being discussed. Let alone invested in."
Yes, it appears that while there is relatively only small investment in renewables, there is virtually none at all on geo-engineering. Deniers have done a good job in shutting down competition and convincing people there is no problem to begin with.
I read that chapter.
It was hard to read. First it launches into myth after myth. Short time line cooling, magazine predicting ice ages, etc. Mostly it bragged about how smart these guys were, yet it was very obvious to me that they had little knowledge of global warming. i.e. Glacial melt was specifically left out of the 2007 IPCC report because they knew at the time that the science wasn't in on that.
Fast forward to today, and A) its all true, and B) its getting worse.
On the other hand, the solutions sounded promising. Buuut… being an engineer I have to say they are pretty simple minded. Sure you can probably put a dent in global warming, but you still haven't solved ocean acidification. More Geoengineering?
My gut feeling is that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Geoengineering\being green.
Resident conservative
Didn't they call this person "resident conservative"? About half way through the clip I thought MSNBC must have put her on to proove Chris' point. It was just too good to be true … On the other hand, that would too subtle of a point for most in the audience. Unfortunate though because too few read this one or similar posts about the topic, which is why I agree that Chris should have said something, whatever short it would have been.
Even nuclear France.
And, yes, even nuclear France is belatedly beginning its transition to renewable energy technologies.
"State-owned utility EDF in partnership with Alstom has won the bulk of France's first offshore wind farm tender, which is designed to kick-start the sector in the country, Energy Minister Eric Besson said on Friday.
"The wind power projects would help France close a gap in renewable energy capacity behind other large European countries, as well as reduce its dependence on nuclear power.
"France launched the tender last July, for a maximum capacity of 3,000 MW, as part of a plan to increase its renewable power to meet 23 percent of energy demand by 2020.
"The country's onshore wind power currently covers 2.5 percent of consumption with 7,000 MW installed, massively behind Germany, the European Union's top wind producer with 28,000 MW.
"Even with the planned offshore wind projects, France has a lot of catching up to do, according to a European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) report published in November.
"The report showed that total installed offshore wind capacity in Europe in 2020 would be 40 gigawatts, compared with less than 3 GW at the end of 2010. Britain already has current and planned projects for 47 GW and Germany for 31 GW.
"The EWEA estimates that between 2021 and 2030, the annual market for offshore for wind turbines could grow from 7.8 GW to 13.7 GW in 2030.
"Europe's offshore wind potential is enormous and able to meet Europe's demand seven times over," the body says on its website."
Alstom win bulk of French wind farm tender
IANVS\Phil… Its about the insurance. The insurance cap means that the public pays for all damages from a nuclear reactor.
"The hidden subsidy to nuclear operators would range from 5.4 to 11.0 c/kWh."
In short, the insurace cap alone saves nuclear as much as solar costs in total. I believe this is the same world wide.
Economic Costs Are King.
Liability caps, loan guarantees, & other government mega-subsidies are only part of the pro-nuclear program, amigo. What's driving utility companies & investors & nation states to abandon nuclear power are the economic costs & risks over the life of the investment compared to cheaper, less risky alternatives.
And back in the good old USA, nat gas is driving coal out of the business.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Greenpeace is not a reliable source of information.
I agreee, but...
I can't find the link I saw 10 years ago and it was not Greenpeace then.
Think about the numbers David. Name another industry that can lay waste to a city or nation in one moment.
If Fukashima was in the US, it would only cost them $400 million to destroy say, LA. Can you replace LA for that price? (There are 14 more identical reactors in the US.)
The insurance cap is the only thing that makes Nuclear viable.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
One of several actual examples:
Bhopal, India.
Also, please go check for hydropower dam failures.
So Who Pays for New Nuclear?
For someone who declares to have investigated all the alternatives – we'll have to take your word for it – you've left a helluva lot of homework undone.
Nuclear power has for many decades enjoyed and continues to enjoy the extraordinary largess of federal government loans, loan guarantees, & mega-subsidies, along with the special advantages of immediate recovery of planning & financing costs through higher electric rates, even before the plants are constructed & produce a single kilowatt-hour for the ratepayer.
If you already knew that, we'll have to assume you've conveniently ignored it.
Who Pays for New Nuclear?
"A number of tradition-oriented utility executives have persisted in pursuing nuclear plant licenses. Some have even begun to raise rates in the process, as Duke Energy did in 2009 in order to cover "pre-development" costs of its proposed Lee nuclear plant in South Carolina. Utility CEOs are well aware of the enormous risks and financial commitments of this business strategy. That is why those who are still considering new nuclear plants are seeking to shift costs to taxpayers through federal loans and loan guarantees, and to electricity consumers through state legislation allowing immediate recovery of planning and financing charges through electric rates. In normal circumstances, they would accumulate these costs and recover them in rates once plants are completed and actually producing electricity."
Even with all that special taxpayer & ratepayer treatment, recent studies show costs of electric generation from new nukes would exceed 18 cents/KWH, & with transmission & distribution costs, 22 cents/KWH, or twice what North Carolinians now pay. Certainly not a less expensive power source.
And when you add in the risks & costs of evacuation & dislocation of major population centers from a nuclear catastrophe like Fukushima or Chernobyl, the costs can be astronomical, if not devastating to the state & regional economy.
"Since capital costs represent some 80% of nuclear electricity's generation costs, projected kilowatt-hour prices have skyrocketed accordingly. Studies which showed expected electricity costs of 7 cents per kilowatt-hour have been updated to show nuclear electricity costs exceeding 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. Transmission and distribution costs would raise the delivered costs to residential customers to 22 cents per kilowatt-hour. This is twice the price North Carolina residential customers now pay to the big utilities."
No amigo, currently available renewable energy technologies are a lot less expensive and much less risky than constructing & operating new nuclear power plants.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Duke Energy
I think, is an owner in the newly starting construction of Vogtle 3&4, Westinghouse AP1000s. Since the situation is quite similar to that of VC Summer, I suspect the LCOE is rather close to US$0.078/kWh. Stated simply, that source is almost surely lying to you. If you care to dig, the project justification documents are available from the state regulatory commision which approved the project.
There is little I can do [even less than the power engineers] to adjust the government's role in the electric power industry. In the current situation NPPs have a federal loan guarantee program [to cover investor risk of non-completion] but no federal loans. Also just now there are tax incentives (quite sizable) for wind farms; these cause serious market distortions in the Pacific Northwest every spring. Finally, there are various loans available to solar PV makers as well as feed-in tariffs in some localities.
So I look at the electric power industry as it is, not as I might wish it was. In the current situation economically NPPs and wind have about the same LCOE. For a reliable grid some wind can be accomadated with low carbon balancing agents; a small fraction of average generation can well be wind. Solar PV, even if almost free, begins to impact reliablity and the econmics of the balancing agent at about 6% average power generation.
There it is. There are no magic solutions in the forseeable future. If you want a reliable, on demand, electricty from low carbon generators a few percent can be wind, a few percent can be solar PV and the rest from dispatchable sources such as NPPs and hydro.
May the cross-over be upon us all.
re: "So I look at the electric power industry as it is, not as I might wish it was."
With your approach, California & other forward looking regions would still be burning oil to make electricity. If history teaches anything, it's that new energy technologies supplant what came before, like coal & oil did wood & whale oil, like nuclear did some coal & oil, like nat gas did & does more coal & oil & nuclear, like renewable energy is doing coal & nuclear & eventually nat gas.
And, as you should be aware, government policies & subsidies helped each successive energy technology develop & deploy to scale so crossover could occur. That's the way the electric power industry was & is, however you might wish it not to be.
And while some may look out that rearview window with nostalgia for the 20th Century, progressive utilities like Duke Energy & other innovators are configuring, testing, & deploying the renewable energy technologies to power the clean energy economies of the 21st Century.
No doubt the projected costs for Vogtle & Sumner rely on taxpayer billions in the form of liability caps, loan guarantees, & other federal subsidies along with higher bills for ratepayers before & after construction completion, and do not disclose the costs of evacuation & dislocation from a major nuclear plant catastrophe. No doubt that too will be left for the unwary taxpayer to clean up.
No magic solutions, amigo, just rapid deployment of innovative renewable energy solutions for the foreseeable future.
Solar is Ready Now: 'Ferocious Cost Reductions' Make Solar PV Competitive
"That 17 GW installed in 2010 is the equivalent of 17 nuclear power plants – manufactured, shipped and installed in one year. It can take decades just to install a nuclear plant."
"We are considerably lower than natural gas peaker plants," says Dinwoodie. We're also coming in lower than new nuclear and becoming lower than new coal. Gigawatts of these plants are being developed in months – not years or decades."
"In sunny markets like California, solar is becoming competitive with large combined-cycle natural gas plants as well. According to Dinwoodie, there have been 4 GW of contracts for solar PV plants in California signed below the Market Price Referent – the projected price of a 500-MW combined cycle natural gas plant."
"So what does all this mean? It means that the notion that "solar is too expensive" doesn't hold up anymore. When financing providers can offer a home or business owner solar electricity for less than the cost of their current services; when utilities start investing in solar themselves to reduce operating costs; and when the technology starts moving into the range of new nuclear and new coal, it's impossible to ignore."
"According to SunPower's Tom Dinwoodie: "The cross-over has occurred."
So there it is, amigo, reliable, on demand, competitively-priced electricity from clean, renewable wind & solar & other renewables as configured & distributed in Germany & Denmark & Spain & elsewhere without the exorbitant costs of new nuclear plants with the risks & costs of nuclear plant catastrophes & long-lived radionuclide wastes.
Renewable Energy Solution of the Month - Wind
Renewable Energy Solution of the Month: Wind - Part 2
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
not reliable nor on demand when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
To repeat, both wind and solar require balancing agents.
Studies show that distributed wind and solar achieve a lot more balancing than you would expect. A DOE study last year looked at distributed industrial/commercial solar in the San Diego area, finding a lot of benefit, more than they expected, from distributing the PV generation.
To repeat,
As do nuclear & nat gas or any power plant technology.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Strictly speaking, no.
The grid as a whole must have enough reserve to accomodate planned or unplanned outages of generators and even transmission lines. A typical, old fashioned arrangement is to have a ready (sometimes called rolling) reserve equal in capacity to the largest single active generator. Nowadays the reserve tends to be larger percentage of the total generation capacity.
That is distinct from the need to provide balancing agents for the unsteady generators, wind and solar.
On Duke Energy
No, amigo, Duke Energy does not own or operate any of the Vogtle Nuclear plants. Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC) is the owner/operator with Georgia Power as part owner of some or all the plants.
Vogtle, Units 3 and 4 Application
Duke Energy is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, operates several nuclear stations in the Southeast, and has applied to build Lee Nuclear Station in South Carolina with underestimated costs of $8 billion. Duke is also attempting to merge with Progress Energy when the regulators okay it.
In recent years, Duke Energy has moved into renewables,
while locals would prefer to have the choice to buy clean renewable power from competitors. Imagine that.
"Almost 87 percent of North Carolinians would support legislation that allowed them to buy electricity produced by clean renewable resource from power companies other than their local utilities, according to a new poll."
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Thank you for the correction.
Yes, people's preferences are not always entirely rational.
"IANVS\Phil... Its about the
"IANVS\Phil… Its about the insurance. The insurance cap means that the public pays for all damages from a nuclear reactor."
Sounds similar to the fossil fuel problem. When there is a disaster, they only pick up part of the tab & leave the rest for the tax payer.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Yes, France is going to have offshore wind
The only reason for this highly subsidized [read unprofitable] venture is that France has to meet EU so-called renewable goals.
David in Denial?
You're starting to chime in against renewable energy not unlike our resident chorus of delay & denial.
Of course, France will probably subsidize a new energy technology like offshore wind, but not nearly to the tune it did & does for existing nuclear plants & not even in the ballpark (or soccer stadium) of what it would have to do to construct & operate new nuclear.
Now ask yourself why France, a major western power that has relied primarily on nuclear power for the last half century, is rapidly deploying clean, reliably-configured & dispatched wind power. http://www.thewindpower.net/country_en_1_france.php
- End 1997: 10 MW
- End 1998: 21 MW (+110 %)
- End 1999: 25 MW (+19.1 %)
- End 2000: 68 MW (+172 %)
- End 2001: 95 MW (+39.8 %)
- End 2002: 148 MW (+55.8 %)
- End 2003: 248 MW (+67.6 %)
- End 2004: 386 MW (+55.7 %)
- End 2005: 757 MW (+96.2 %)
- End 2006: 1,567 MW (+107.1 %)
- End 2007: 2,455 MW (+56.7 %)
- End 2008: 3,404 MW (+38.7 %)
- End 2009: 4,492 MW (+32 %)
- End 2010: 5,970 MW (+33 %)
- End 2011: 6,684 MW (+12 %)
And Britain: http://www.thewindpower.net/country_en_8_united-kingdom.php
- End 1997: 319 MW
- End 1998: 333 MW (+4.4 %)
- End 1999: 347 MW (+4.3 %)
- End 2000: 409 MW (+17.9 %)
- End 2001: 474 MW (+15.9 %)
- End 2002: 552 MW (+16.5 %)
- End 2003: 684 MW (+24 %)
- End 2004: 888 MW (+29.9 %)
- End 2005: 1,353 MW (+52.4 %)
- End 2006: 1,963 MW (+45.1 %)
- End 2007: 2,389 MW (+21.8 %)
- End 2008: 3,288 MW (+37.7 %)
- End 2009: 4,051 MW (+23.3 %)
- End 2010: 5,204 MW (+28.5 %)
- End 2011: 6,540 MW (+25.7 %)
And Germany: http://www.thewindpower.net/country_en_2_germany.php
- End 1997: 2,081 MW
- End 1998: 2,875 MW (+38.2 %)
- End 1999: 4,443 MW (+54.6 %)
- End 2000: 6,095 MW (+37.2 %)
- End 2001: 8,754 MW (+43.7 %)
- End 2002: 12,001 MW (+37.1 %)
- End 2003: 16,629 MW (+38.6 %)
- End 2004: 18,428 MW (+10.9 %)
- End 2005: 18,500 MW (+0.4 %)
- End 2006: 20,622 MW (+11.5 %)
- End 2007: 22,247 MW (+7.9 %)
- End 2008: 23,903 MW (+7.5 %)
- End 2009: 25,777 MW (+7.9 %)
- End 2010: 27,191 MW (+5.5 %)
- End 2011: 29,060 MW (+6.9 %)
And the rest of Europe: http://www.thewindpower.net/windfarms_europe_en.php
It ain't because they don't know how to build nukes, amigo.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
an electricity grid can accomodate a modest proportion of wind power.
I don't know the economics of electricity in France very well, but with almost 80% from NPPs their electric rates are the lowest in Europe or nearly so. I don't know the extent to which EDF is subsidized by taxpayers but EDF is now about half privately owned which tends to suggest unsubsidized.
The overbudget and delayed Areva EPR under construction will end up operating at a loss as a merchant owned NPP. I suppose the taxpayers will somehow pick up the tab. But the tab might be as much as one billion Euros. However, the corresponding subsidies for the offshore wind will be 2.2 billion euros per annum.
I'll point out that England is going to (at least) replace its NPP fleet with Gen IIIs (and maybe add a couple of Gen IVs). The British fully realize they cannot have reliable electricity without most of it coming from dispatchable thermal generators.
I'll also point out that Germany has the second highest electric rates in Europe; only Denmark, with greater wind penitration, has higher rates.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, as in Texas, when wind farms go in natgas generators are sure to follow. Since it appears likely that natgas has, when all losses are factored in, has about as much global warming potential as coal. Somehow I can't see wind power as part of the solution.
Wind Power is Reliably Integrated on the Grid.
re: "an electricity grid can [accommodate] a modest proportion of wind power."
Well, David, the actual experience of wind generated electric power systems would belie your pro-nuclear propaganda.
"Large amounts of wind energy are already being reliably and cost-effectively integrated with the grid in the U.S. and around the world. In 2010, the Texas grid obtained 7.8% of its electricity from wind energy, with wind energy providing more than 25% of the grid's electricity at one point. Roughly 20% of the electricity produced in Iowa now comes from wind energy. Similarly, European countries like Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and Ireland now obtain more than 10% of their electricity from wind energy, with wind providing more than 45% of Spain's electricity at one point."
How Wind Energy is Reliably Integrated on the Grid
"European countries like Denmark, Spain, Ireland, and Germany have successfully integrated very large amounts of wind energy without having to install new energy storage resources. In the U.S., numerous peer-reviewed studies have concluded that wind energy can provide 20% or more of our electricity without any need for energy storage."
Wind Energy Basics
As long as you hide or deny the exorbitant total costs & substantial risks of nuclear power, David, you'll likely never acknowledge the clear cost advantages & substantially lower risks of renewable energy technologies like wind & solar. But rest assured, the cross-over to our clean energy economies will continue with or without you.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
I replied to another of your comments. Here I'll just point out that a recent contract between a new wind farm an Idaho Power has an LCOE of US$0.091/kWh which Idaho Power pays to the wind farm operator. The wind farm operator also collects the federal tax credit of US$0.021/kWh, thus a total of US$0.112/kWh.
Compare that to the nearest NPP: US$0.0275/kWh. Or VC Summer which, if it doesn't go over budget, has a lifertime LCOE of US$0.076/kWh.
Increasing Wind Power Increases Grid Reliability.
As per your trustworthy Union of Concerned Scientists.
Addressing the Variability of Wind Power
"Dealing with the variability of wind on a large scale is by no means insurmountable for electric utilities. Grid operators must already adjust to constant changes in electricity demand, turning power plants on and off, and varying their output second-by-second as power use rises and falls. Operators always need to keep power plants in reserve to meet unexpected surges or drops in demand, as well as power plant and transmission line outages. As a result, operators do not need to respond to changes in wind output at each wind facility. In addition, the wind is always blowing somewhere, so distributing wind turbines across a broad geographic area helps smooth out the variability of the resource."
Some utility systems generate upwards of 40% of their electricity from wind power with no reliability problems.
"In practice, many utilities are already demonstrating that wind can make a significant contribution to their electric supply without reliability problems. Xcel Energy, which serves nearly 3.5 million customers across eight Western and Midwestern states, currently obtains eight percent of its electricity from wind and plans to increase that to about 20 percent by 2020. There are also several areas in Europe where wind power already supplies more than 20 percent of the electricity with no adverse effects on system reliability. For instance, three states in Germany have wind electricity penetrations of at least 40 percent."
And wind power can actually reduce the overall operating costs of a power grid.
"The challenge of integrating wind energy into the electric grid can increase costs, by not by much. Extensive engineering studies by utilities in several U.S. regions, as well as actual operating experience in Europe have found that even with up to 20 percent penetration, the grid integration costs add only up to about 10 percent of the wholesale cost of the wind generation. However, because wind has low variable costs, it can reduce overall system operating costs by displacing the output of units with higher operating costs (e.g., gas turbines)."
While increasing wind power can actually improve the reliability of an electric power system, even without additional power storage systems.
"Increasing our use of wind power can actually contribute to a more reliable electric system. Today's modern wind turbines have sophisticated electronic controls that allow continual adjustment of their output, and can help grid operators stabilize the grid in response to unexpected operating conditions, like a power line or power plant outage. This gives grid operators greater flexibility to respond to such events. Promising developments in storage technology could also improve reliability in the future, though there is plenty of room to greatly expand wind use without storage for at least the next couple of decades."
Who knew?
So you can see that the nuclear talking points you have been [un]consciously consuming & repeatedly regurgitating here are not fact-based, but rather pro-nuke, liability-capped, mega-subsidized, anti-renewable propaganda. Being of the nuclear industry, we've heard it all before and then some.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
stick to the subject dispassionately and without ascribing motive (about which you seem to have failed to read some of my earlier comments with any comprehension).
I stated UCS was good regarding matters nuclear. That does not mean they understand the realities of wind generation very well.
(1) Times of greatest demand often occur when a blocking high settles over a wide area. That means other types of generators must be able to take up the load. ERCOT had a power emergency (rolling blackouts) on one such occasion; didn't met reliability requirement. Here in the Pacific Northwest a similar pattern lasted for about 6 weeks last autumn; all that happened was more water through the hydro generators and turning on the biomass burners a bit sooner than in most years.
(2) Wind absolutely requires balancing agents. These are typically thermal generators, either coal or natgas. With an average availability of say 27% one might think that saves the same amount of fuel; wrong. Extra fuel is consumed when ramping so the savings are quite a bit smaaller and may even be negative as in the following studies.
Herbert Inhaber
Why wind power does not deliver the expected emissions reductions
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
Volume 15, Issue 6, August 2011, Pages 2557-2562
Wind power on the Irish grid:
Bentek Corporation: How less became more; Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market.
Electricity in The Netherlands.
Wind turbines increase fossil fuel consumption & CO2 emission.
by C. le Pair
Electricity Costs: The folly of wind-power
by Ruth Lea
Wind Energy Does Little to Reduce CO2 Emissions
(3) A wind penitration of 40% has to be properly interpreted by multiplying by the availablity. For example, BPA can act as balancing agent via all the hydro around here up to 20%. But that is nameplate rating only. The availabity is 26% so the averaged power from wind is but 5.4% of the total. As I said, a modest amount of wind can be accomidated.
(4) Yes, wind helps stabilize an electric grid (at around the 1 second level) provided it is operated to do so (as in Spain) and not as a pure must-take generator (as in most places in the US). Here is a thorough study of the situation in Europe.
IEA Wind Power Study
(5) NPPs are about as risky as eating peanut butter, from
Professor Cohen's "Understanding Risk"
and a study from Europe (so including Chernobyl) concludes that NPPs are, on actual deaths caused per TW-yr basis, the safest of all generators, safer than even hydro and wind. [I have an issue with the method employed, so discount the claims for solar PV and maybe wind also.]
(6) As I previously stated the realities of electricity generation together with a desire to minimize burning fossil carbon into CO2 has eventually led me to much the same conclusion as Barry Brook and George Monbiot. Monbiot has recently written 3 excellent articles on this matter; I encourage you to read those.
The issue is batteries.
I built a solar parking meter once, and we specified a battery and solar panel able to work in a place with the lowest amount of light. (Panel and battery were huge.)
The issue is that we haven't got storage capacity for any energy. This issue affects Nuclear, Fossil Fuel, Wind, and Solar.
We do not in any way build power grids to suit our average needs. We build them to suit peak needs, or peak capacity. For instance, 20 minutes after the Royal Couple were married, everyone in the UK turned on a pot of water for tea. The demand spike was enormous. You could argue that the UK built whole power plants so that everyone in the UK could turn on a pot of tea after a Royal Wedding.
What we really need is batteries to store up energy when demand is low, and release it when demand is high. This will soften up all requirements for all fuel sources.
We currently only have enough batteries on the planet to run our entire civilization for 5 minutes. What we need is like 1 day worth of battery time.
This is exactly why solar installations are different depending on where you are in the world. Californians have more sun, so they need less panel capacity. They probably need less battery capacity because they don't have the same heating requirements as say, Calgary Alberta. Solar here costs quite a bit more.
Geothermal hasn't caught on in Alberta since A) it requires a lot more electricy to run pumps continuously, B) our electricity is coal generated. Therefore Geothermal isn't 'green' here. In BC however they use a lot of Hydro power, so its 'green' to go Geothermal.
Teapots and grid management
I have here the link for a segment similar to your "Royal Couple" demand scenario.
The video shows the operations center of National Grid in Britain and how they respond to the tea kettle spike at the end of every "East Enders" show.
You are quite right that storage is the next breakthrough - it is necessary to get the majority of power from intermittent sources. There are all kinds of new developments in the works, from an MIT dirt battery, sodium batteries, pumped storage, compressed air, and flywheels.
So, for Alberta, there's not a lot of hydro - is that since it is on the leeward side of the mountains and you don't get the precipitation to fill reservoirs?
I like to joke about Alberta Dams.
I mean… its flat here. One dam would flood the whole place.
This is also a desert. Prickly Pear cactuses live here.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
batteries needed to store massive amount of energy are extremely expensive and only used in the electric power industry when absolutely necessary.
The best techniques I know of are CAES, which requires special topography only available in a few places and underground pumped hydro, which could be done almost anywhere but which is quite espensive. For both techniques about the most that can profitably be stored is what can be obtained inexpensively overnight to be sold the following day (at high prices).
You Royal Marriage example is a good indicator of why variable pricing, rather than fixed pricing, would go a distance towards keeping the cost of electrcity under control. This is just now being to become practiable around here; the first step is installing digital meters [which are read, wirelessly, every 5 minutes].
On Passions & Motives
We dispassionately ascribe motive wherever displayed.
And it's become very clear that you have allowed it to feed your denial of the exorbitant costs & extraordinary risks of nuclear power even as less costly, less risky renewable energy alternatives are rapidly embraced & deployed around the world.
Odd tube wear seen in both San Onofre reactors
"The indefinite shutdown of the reactors prompted the California Independent Systems Operator, which manages the state's power grid, to develop contingency plans for electricity generation in case of an extended summer heat wave. The plans include possible reactivation of two power units at the AES power plant in Huntington Beach that had been shut down."
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Look to your own comments and the lack of knowledge based upon reason therein. Earilier, in another comment, I gave examples which seem to indicate that NPPs are less costly than wind genrators. Did you even bother to read it?
I also noted that some studies show NPPs are asssociated with fewer deaths per TW-yr than any other form of generation. Did you bother to read that?
I also gave links to several studies in Europe and one in the US which suggest that wind generation saves no OO2 emmisions. Did you bother to read those studies?
I go about this in as scholarly a manner as I can. I do recommend an approach based upon reasoned judgement. Ascribing motives and otherwise using emotive terms strongly suggests you have a fixed position y9ou are attempting to defend; your mind is made up and you don't want to consider the facts.
Part of those facts are that every vendor industry is attempting to oversell the advantages of their product. One balances that by looking to others to show the disadvantages [not to mention the overselling].
Wind Is In, Nuke Is On Its Way Out.
Might we suggest that instead of digging yourself deeper into that blackhole of can't-do-denial, David, you learn how responsible, can-do engineers & dedicated energy planners are integrating renewable energy resources into our power grid systems for this decade & the next.
Let's start with wind power, shall we?
Benefit of Regional Energy Balancing Service on Wind Integration in the Western Interconnection of the United States http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49076.pdf
"This analysis indicates that the efficient dispatch toolkit proposed by the WECC stakeholders holds great potential to mitigate the operations impacts associated with integration of large amounts of wind generation. The EDT effectively pools variability across the interconnection, and although it does not result in coordinated unit commitment, energy variability, both from load and from wind, is reduced."
Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2010/ewits_executive_summary.pdf
"The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) is one of the largest regional wind integration studies to date. It was initiated in 2008 to examine the operational impact of up to 20-30% energy penetration of wind on the power system in the Eastern Interconnect of the United States (see study area map)."
"High penetrations of wind generation—20% to 30% of the electrical energy requirements of the Eastern Interconnection—are technically feasible with significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure."
"Transmission helps reduce the impacts of the variability of the wind, which reduces wind integration costs, increases reliability of the electrical grid, and helps make more efficient use of the available generation resources."
Integration Studies and Operational Impacts Projects http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/projects_impacts_studies.html
Of course, the bigger, more reliable wind power is right offshore.
Vestas 7.0 MW Wind Turbine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNm6heelceo
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
NRL is quite good, they do have a mission. I prefer to look at the actual operational status of wind farms on actual grids to understand the problems which arise.
Irrespective of your risk assumptions (I have no idea how objective those are) actual experience shows that NPPs are, world wide. one of the safest generation methods. For example, the US NPP fleet now averages but 0.03 injuries per 100,000 worker hours. Please compare that to injuries during wind generator maintenance.
Around here the only new transmission in a long time is the Boardman, WA, to Hemingway, ID, intertie. The main purpose is to wheel 450 MW from sources (including wind) around the Columiba Gorge to Idaho Power; its badly needed over there as Idaho Power is basically out of reserrves. Another purpose is to wheel power from a new 800 MW [nameplate] wind farm down to Bonneville to put on the interties to CA; but this alone cannot pay the cost of new transmission while Idaho Power can.
Lets just say I have a variety of sources of information about the grid and power engineering.
So here is a challenge for you. A simplified model grid requires 28 GW from 6 am to 11 pm and 20 GW from 11pm to 6 am. Every day is exactly the same. Find the least cost way to energize this grid using only low carbon generators assuming no hydro or geothermal is available. To meet the reliability requirement you will find, at today's prices, mostly NPPs with some solar PV will work best.
For example, the US NPP fleet
For example, the US NPP fleet now averages but 0.03 injuries per 100,000 worker hours. Please compare that to injuries during wind generator maintenance.
From Desmogblog (share this quote)
Woo hoo, quoting works! Although a little slow, but hey its a step.
Edit/update: oops, no they don't. Before i click save for the comment, it shows me the quotation marks & even here in the edit creen i see them. But once the comment is saved, the quote marks dissapear.
Anyways, back to the quote in question. David, that is what I mentioned above which i find incredible :
Clearly having trained, diligent and disciplined professionals such as in the military shows its a good source of power for shipping at least. I wouldn't trust cost cutting private enterprise to it though.
From Desmogblog (share this quote)
While I admire the NPP fleet & marvel at how giant machines can be powered for years without refuelling, I realise that they are being operated by very well trained, disciplined professionals. There is no strikes, no unionism, no employers trying to undercut or save a few $$ by thinning the staff numbers or going cheap on materials or repairs. They don't stuff around in the miltary. The same can't be said about the private sector.
To be fair, even though I admire nuclear, only comparing wind installed by the military vs NPP operated by the military would be a fair comparison.
The private sector have issues. Drink or drug affected employees, staff equiped with 2nd rate safety or tools to work with, lack of supervision, deadlines to meet, the need to come in under quote to remain profitable.
David B. Benson replied on Permalink
Oh my.
I assure you that the nuclear US Navy has had its share of drink or drug affected employees. The NRC does quite a decent job of overseeing the NPPs. For example,
The figure I mentioned so for the civilian NPPs only, from
To infinity & beyond, dispassionately!
re: "I prefer …"
You're still talking about the subsidized electricity rates for nuclear plants that were built 30 to 50 years ago with mega-billions of taxpayer & ratepayer subsidies but still do not cover the costs & risks to the general public from nuclear catastrophes like Fukushima.
We're talking about the cost of electric power going forward for the next 30 to 50 years, without the costs & risks from nuclear plant catastrophes.
As the French are discovering, nuclear power continues to be heavily subsidized after all these years:
"In a review of the cost of nuclear power commission on May 17, 2011, the French Court of Auditors found that the cost of nuclear power in France is currently above the rate charged to consumers, confirming charges that France subsidizes its power sector. The wind sector has responded by pointing out that wind power is cheaper than new nuclear installations."
And nuclear power will have to be even more heavily subsidized should new nukes be built:
"But going forward, next-generation nuclear plants will be much more costly, new safety requirements in the wake of the disaster at Fukushima will make revamped old plants much more expensive. The estimated costs for the second EPR plant currently under construction in Flamanville comes in at 3.7 million euros per megawatt; construction began in 2006 and was to be finished this year, but completion has been delayed until 2016, and costs have risen by more than 50 percent."
So with all dispassion & logic, we find ourselves in complete accord with the French – & the Germans & the Danes, for that matter – that wind power fully integrated into a smart super-grid will reliably power progressive nation states many years sooner & much more economically than nuclear.
"The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) reacted to the study last month in its blog by pointing out that the cost of nuclear is set to skyrocket in France, partly because "22 [of France's 58, ed.] reactors will reach theirs life limit by 2022." By 2020, EWEA estimates that nuclear power will cost 102 euros per megawatt-hour, compared to only 58 euros for onshore wind and 75 for offshore."
French court finds nuclear too expensive http://www.renewablesinternational.net/french-court-finds-nuclear-too-expensive/150/435/33367/
You see, David, unlike people who are so stuck in the last century – Shall we logically include you? – that they can't see or acknowledge the renewable winds of change all about them, the progressive can-do electric utility companies we call customers are planning & deploying for your clean energy future. You should thank them, as should your children.
Vive la France!
Vive la Canadienne! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QisM5juuqsA


text:
|Cake Decorating
Closed Captioned
Join cake decorating legend Nicholas Lodge for a comprehensive class on personalizing cakes with custom lettering and monograms. Achieve professional results using accessible transfer techniques sych as the pin-prick method. Get comfortable creating impressive lettering with freehand and color-flow royal icing techniques. Create scintillating messages by painting and piping with metallics. Stencil with innovative techniques for perfect messages every time. Use cutters to create marvelous monograms and even make three-dimensional lettering that stands up on your cake. Learn essential custom lettering and monogramming techniques for messages that complement your designs and highlight the occasion.
Meet world-renowned instructor Nicholas Lodge and learn to transfer letters onto a cake using a pin or via embossing. Then, learn how to mix gel colors for hues that pop and add dimension to your designs.
Learn to love your piping bag as you master creating monograms and messages by hand. Nicholas takes you through several lovely typefaces, whose templates are included in your class materials, and shows you how to plan and execute your message flawlessly. Use royal icing to pipe letters on parchment that can be transferred to the cake after they are dry.
Give your letters luster and sparkle as you make shiny gold, silver and even bronze paint for fondant or gum paste letters. Make your own dazzling metallic icing, perfect for piping on a cake, or add disco dust for a glittery finish.
Create charming monogrammed plaques and medallions as you apply dusts or royal icing to a stencil and learn to scale this method for use on a large project. Discover how softened fondant can give you a perfect color match and where to go to have custom stencils created.
Add tylose powder to your fondant to create letters that keep their shape as Nicholas demonstrates a variety of cutters for perfect lettering, every time. Then, Nicholas shares his clever method for creating interlinked monograms.
Clients and friends will stand up and take notice when you add freestanding monograms to the top of your cakes. Cut, texture and add support to your letters. Create a delightful polka-dot inlay pattern and use a clay gun to create a rope of modified fondant to form script letters that dry hard. Finish the class with a tour of the numerous ways to incorporate monograms and messaging into your cakes.
"This class teaches so many new techniques, not only in stenciling, monograms or making plaques, but also with how to use fondant mixed with other mediums in various ways to make a whole new medium. It truly is fascinating. I have to say this is one of the better classes on Craftsy. Full of great information and tips all the way through."
- onetier
Toronto, CA


text:
Oak Grove police said a teenager was taken to a hospital after falling from a vehicle.
Investigators said it happened Wednesday afternoon at 1111 SE 20th St.
Police said one teenager was driving with the victim on the hood of his car. The driver hit the brakes and the teenager on the hood fell off.
Investigators said the teenager suffered only minor injuries and will be OK.
Police said no citations will be issued in the case.


text:
Tick Tubes®, Set of 6
This item is currently not available.
Additional Information
Tick Tubes® Help Prevent Lyme Disease
- Reduce your exposure to Lyme disease by up to 90%
- Environmentally friendly way to kill ticks before they spread disease
- Set of six tubes treats 1/8 acre
Tick Tubes help minimize your chance of exposure to Lyme disease by up to 90%, by killing deer ticks before they have a chance to spread the disease to you or your pets. The cardboard tubes contain cotton that's been treated with permethrin. Simply place the tubes in mouse habitat — brushy areas, ground covers, stone walls. When mice collect the cotton for their nests the permethrin is transferred to their fur. Deer ticks that feed on mice in spring and late summer are exposed to the permethrin and killed before they can spread the disease. Set of 6 tubes treats 5,500 sq. ft.
Product Details
- Cardboard, cotton, permethrin
- Each tube measures 1-1/2" in diameter x 5-3/4" L
There are no special shipping restrictions or charges associated with this item. For detailed information about our delivery methods and charges, click here.
We're proud of the fact that this item is shipped to you directly from our warehouse in Vermont, by one of our 250 employee-owners. In-stock items are packed with care and shipped within the next business day to ensure prompt delivery to your home and garden!


text:
Here is a great lesson on leadership… Enjoy.. and think about it.
Have a Great Scouting Day!
a super object lesson! A scout is brave when he supports a new idea offered up by another.
That's awesome. I'm also pretty sure that was filmed at the Gorge in George, WA, an outdoor amphitheater.
Message here is very true. I like it.
Cutting Pounds One Ounce at a Time
See you outdoors
Be Outstanding Through Personal Accountability
It's Not Just For Boys...
Camping and Events
Planning and completing a 2014 Appalachian Trail thru-hike
Just another WordPress.com weblog
Life, Camp, and Scouting


text:
My family and I love walking and biking our neighborhood on James Island. We have lived here since 2000. Many of our neighbors have been here their entire lives. We like to think of ourselves as a mini-community. There is only one way in and one way out of our neighborhood.
Recently part of my neighborhood has become off-limits.
It seems a developer with visions of dollar signs has created a gated community within our neighborhood.
These new neighbors drive into and through our neighborhood, and then into a place where they can continue to travel but we no longer can.
Can you really just install a high-dollar security gate, loaded with cameras to boot, anywhere you choose?
This isn't Kiawah or Seabrook Island. It's Lighthouse Point subdivision. I understand, though don't find desirable, the exclusivity of gated communities.
Gates within our mini-community only build anger, animosity and a wish that these folks weren't so afraid of the people who live around them.
We want to embrace our new neighbors. We have an annual neighborhood picnic. They could be included.
Seems these 27 future neighbors just want to keep us, and all other undesirables, out.
Lisa Morris
Creekside Drive
James Island


text:
Top Definition
An enviorment friendly fundraising product sold in elementary and middle schools. They are pencils that are made of rolled, recycled newspapers instead of wood and are soaked in chemicals that produce many different scents, including bubble gum, cherry, cookie dough, and hazelnut latte. Hence the name Sme-ncil. Pencils that smell. Many kids sniff them Obsessively to get high.
Some people in the cafeteria were selling Smencils. Yay.
от Queefer77 02 февруари 2006
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Drug infested pencils that will make you high if you smell them to much.
Hey Dude! Me and my friends just got some Smencils. Wanna go sniff them?
от KingFluffyIII 26 ноември 2013
a scented pencil that people like to sniff during class.
dude! can i smell youre smencil?
от moxevil 10 ноември 2006


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Libochovice Glassworks, pa :hiclptt.no.1691.
Larger images would help us figure this out Jeanniegal. (Send me biggies if you want them sorting and adding. :thup:) This is one of my favourite candlesticks!
Well done lass! Is the right hand one frosted between the ridged bits as well?
no thats plain and heavier and clearer and sharper and flater underneath.. ill post more tomorrow. i'm getting good at this
Page created in 0.882 seconds with 28 queries.


text:
You may enter a US or Canadian location in the following formats:
For additional search options, go to
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Advanced Search.
Yes, I want to receive LoopNet's weekly newsletter "LoopNews" and information about LoopNet promotions and special offers.
By clicking the button above, you are indicating that you have read, understood, and agree to LoopNet's Terms and Conditions.
Symonds, Mississippi Off-Market Properties - View the following Symonds commercial real estate listings which have been recently Sold, Leased or taken Off-Market. You may narrow or broaden your search for historical Symonds properties by selecting the available options on the right. If you are looking for active Symonds commercial real estate, LoopNet has over nearly 800,000 current multifamily apartments, retail spaces, office buildings, industrial properties, hotels and motels, shopping centers, land for sale and lease, and much more.
Register for FREE and get Access to the More LoopNet Properties and Features:
0 Listings
Looking for Symonds, Mississippi properties? If you are new to investing in commercial real estate, these guides can help provide some insight into the different types of commercial opportunities available.
To find new or established Symonds businesses for sale, business assets, or franchises for sale, go to BizBuySell.com:
Share this page on social networks:
Start a new search to find current Symonds commercial real estate listings available for sale or lease:
Advertising commercial real estate on LoopNet.com is FREE:Click to add your property to LoopNet.com.
LoopNet.com operates the most heavily trafficked online listing service for Symonds, Mississippi commercial real estate and other U.S. and Canadian markets with over $425 billion of commercial real estate for sale and 6.3 billion of commercial real estate space for lease.
This page includes just a portion of the many off-market Symonds listings showing lease and sales history of commercial listings on LoopNet.com. For complete access to all available commercial real estate comparable sales data, try LoopNet's RecentSales product. RecentSales provides accurate and up-to-date information on recent Symonds closed sales transactions and other top commercial real estate markets nationally.
As the leading marketplace for commercial real estate listings, news, loans and resources, LoopNet attracts a large community of Symonds commercial real estate professionals with total LoopNet membership exeeding 7 million members. The LoopNet user base is comprised of commercial real estate brokers, corporate executives, mortgage brokers, and over 3 million buyers, tenants and other principals from Symonds and other national and international markets.
LoopNet's inventory of Symonds commercial real estate listings includes multifamily apartment buildings, office buildings, retail space, hotels and motels, gas stations, churches, shopping centers, warehouses, restaurants, land for sale, Symonds foreclosures and much more.
Register for FREE and get Access to the More LoopNet Features.
Select one of the following property types to narrow your search for Symonds, Mississippi properties:
Search for currently listed Symonds properties:Symonds Active Listings
Find a Symonds Commercial Real Estate Broker


text:
(N.) All of the same sugar, with twice the caffine. In other words.... Liquid Sh*t in a can! Drinking this will have leave you with a 50% chance of instant death. Even the offical soda for gays "Faygo" and soda of the white ghetto, New York, "Bubba Cola" is better than this most likely.
Being under 20, I learned about Jolt Cola from Vh1. Thanks again, VH1's "I Love the 80's Strikes Back!" Coming Up Next, The Fly, My Little Pony, and the "Where's the Beef?" old bitch.
από G-Union 30 Οκτώβριος 2003
a caffeine-enhanced cola beverage that perks up those who are too limp-wristed for a stout pitcher of black coffee
Little Billy drinks "Jolt Cola" for a caffeine boost since he can't handle the "bitter" taste of coffee.
από Dolphin_X 15 Απρίλιος 2003


text:
47% of Graduates of 2013 Unemployable for Any Job: Study
By PTI
Published: 26th December 2013 06:15 PM
Last Updated: 26th December 2013 06:15 PM
It seems formal education in India is not imparting enough skills to students as nearly half of the graduates of this year were found unemployable for any job, according to a study.
The study identified the key employability trends of 2013 and the most striking one was that a significant proportion of graduates of 2013, nearly 47 per cent, were found unemployable in any sector, given their English language and cognitive skills, said Aspiring Minds, a leading employability solutions company.
Meanwhile according to a survey 8.5 lakh new jobs are expected across various sectors, including FMCG and healthcare.
Of all the respondents in the survey, only 2.59 per cent of them was found employable in functional roles such as accounting, while 15.88 per cent was suitable for employment in sales related roles and 21.37 per cent for roles in the business process outsourcing sector, a report by Aspiring Minds said.
It said more females are pursuing three-year degree courses and when it comes to employability they are similar or higher suited than males.
There are 109 males to every 100 females in three-year degree programmes, it said.
Lack of English knowledge, poor skills in computer and concepts learning were major deterrents to employability.
Poor knowledge of English and inadequate computer skills dampen employability prospects in smaller towns significantly, the report said, adding that for students residing or studying in smaller towns and cities (tier 2 or tier 3), the maximum gap is observed in English and computer skills.
Moreover, not more than 25 per cent of the graduating students could apply concepts to solve a real-world problem in the domain of finance and accounting, while, on average, 50 per cent graduates are able to answer definition-based/ theoretical questions based on the same concept.
The report noted that around 41 per cent of graduates employable in accounting roles hail from colleges beyond the top 30 per cent colleges, whereas for the IT services sector this percentage is 36 per cent.
Disclaimer: We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the NIE editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.


text:
We are a drink, and we're DELICIOUS!
DrinkPhilly.com Announces the Philadelphia Film Festival's First Official Cocktail!
Here at the Philadelphia Film Society (PFS), we love going to the movies, and we especially love going out for dinner, drinks, and a movie. Really making a night of it, you know? Say what you will about the ease of watching movies on insta-TV-laptop-demand, we still believe that there's something special and wonderful about escaping into another world via a well-made film on the silver screen.


text:
Our very lovely and incredibly dedicated music manager Aubrey (also known as Aub) is today celebrating her birthday!
Since the music section launched three years ago, Aubrey has helped to bring great new artists to the site including Rachael Gallman, Nick Wilson and, a particular favourite from earlier this month, Jaron Ferrer. Seriously, you gotta check Jaron out.
Aubrey (along with staffer Dove) also interviewed Rupert at the Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Florida, round robining him about art, music and more. Check out their "Lightning Round" below:-
We're so lucky to have you, Aubrey - thank you for all you do! From all of the staff and fans at RG.net, have a wonderful day!!
Submitted by Claire on Fri, 10/25/2013 - 06:51


text:
COLUMBIA — Bruce Ellington noticed a difference with his quarterback when this season began.
Suddenly, South Carolina senior Connor Shaw saw the whole field. No longer did he automatically throw to his primary receiver. In games, the Gamecocks' second-year starter scanned the secondary, passing over targets like he was going down a check list. He stayed in the pocket, more reluctant to tuck the football and run.
It's the transition every quarterback must make. Ellington sees Shaw on film, and he's convinced the senior made that leap.
"Last year, he'd look at the first option and run out," said Ellington, USC's top receiver. "But this year, he's taking his time. Coach is talking to him — who's open, who's not open. He's staying in the pocket and throwing the ball.
"He's just got that confidence. He's coming out to practice and being a leader. That's what it takes as a quarterback — to control the offense — and that's what he's doing."
In a rare moment of transparency Tuesday, Shaw was blunt. Yes, he said, this is the best he's ever played. His numbers show it. Of course, his reputation still lags behind.
In the SEC, there is no shortage of quarterback talent. This is the conference that produced last season's Heisman Trophy winner, and Texas A&M's Johnny Manziel wasn't even selected to the Preseason All-SEC First Team. That distinction went to Alabama quarterback AJ McCarron. Others thought Georgia's Aaron Murray deserved it. Neither had the best stat line through the first four weeks, with LSU's Zach Mettenberger becoming a breakout star.
On and on the list goes, no mention of Shaw. He's always been viewed a cut below the elite. Early this season, he boasts something Manziel, McCarron, Murray and Mettenberger can't.
Shaw is the only SEC quarterback to toss at least six touchdowns with no interceptions. He hasn't thrown it to the other team in his past 116 attempts, going back to last season's win against Wofford. It's the longest streak in his career.
"I'm playing well, probably better than I have in the past," Shaw said. "As far as protecting the ball, and doing things differently, I'm just playing smart. I'm not forcing things. I'm taking what the defense is giving me."
USC coach Steve Spurrier would like Shaw to take more.
As a pure playmaker, Shaw has room to grow. His 220.3 passing yards per game don't blow anyone away — though, his 287.7 total yards per game is fourth in the SEC. Shaw is more game manager than superstar, even if USC is on pace to average 30 points per game for the second straight season with him as a full-time starter.
USC has benefited with Shaw behind center. His 66.5 percent completion rate is the highest career mark in program history. Along with Jeff Grantz, Shaw is one of two Gamecocks to pass for 3,000 yards and rush for 1,000.
Most important, Shaw is 19-4 as a starter, including 12-0 at home.
But, while Shaw has progressed as a pocket passer, Spurrier is focused on the next phase. He wants Shaw to take more shots downfield, going after more big plays.
"We should be taking more, if I could get him to throw it," Spurrier said last week. "We're calling more, but a lot of times he doesn't throw it. He doesn't think the guy's open, and sometimes it's not. But, at times, I wish he would chuck a few more deep ones down there, when there's an opportunity."
There's always something to improve, but Spurrier finds it hard to complain too much.
The worst thing a quarterback can do is turn the ball over. Shaw lost a fumble at Georgia, a costly mistake late in the game. He hasn't been perfect. Still, with Shaw managing the offense, South Carolina has experienced some of the best quarterback play in program history.
"He's played very well," Spurrier said Tuesday. "He takes care of the ball extremely well. I watched some of those NFL guys toss those careless interceptions, and I say, 'Our guy doesn't do that.' So he's careful where he throws it."


text:
Egypt Mosque Standoff Ends Amid Gunfire
Explosions cap 24-hour standoff
CAIRO—A 24-hour standoff between Egyptian security forces and antigovernment protesters holed up in a Cairo mosque ended amid gunfire and explosions late Saturday afternoon, with clashes leaving at least 173 dead across the country.
Antigovernment protesters erected barricades inside the al Fatah Mosque in Cairo's Ramses Square after deadly clashes Friday afternoon had turned the mosque into a makeshift morgue and medical center and a refuge for some 400 protesters later that evening.
But the competing narratives over what happened at the mosque Saturday reflects the deepening polarization between the Muslim Brotherhood and the government, and their vastly different versions of events.
The Brotherhood says it is fighting to preserve democracy, while the government claims it is cracking down on the movement as it conducts terrorist acts. Egypt's Brotherhood-led government was overthrown in a military coup last month.
On Saturday morning, security forces in armored personnel carriers surrounded the al Fatah Mosque with tanks and snipers on the roofs of nearby buildings. They appeared to fire the opening shots at about 1:30 p.m., although state TV reported that there were gunmen in the minaret that fired first.
Reporters inside the mosque, however, said they didn't see any arms there, where supporters of the Brotherhood-led Anti-Coup Alliance were holed up.
"No one inside has any guns, so why are they shooting them?" said Ahmed Atef, 32 years old, an onlooker.
As antigovernment protesters and international journalists fled the mosque they were violently beaten by civilian groups, known as popular committees. The police had earlier struggled to keep civilians from storming the mosque, creating a cordon used both to protect antigovernment protesters inside while readying to clear the mosque themselves.
But the inability of national security forces to control the civilian mobs showed how quickly they had lost grip of the volatile situation, and came as antigovernment protests planned more demonstrations for the next week.
The government appeared to be inflaming the situation by encouraging civilians to stand up to Brotherhood supporters, labeling them "terrorists."
"We need more support from the Egyptian people to avoid any mistakes while we secure [government] facilities and churches," the spokesman for the prime minister said in televised remarks Saturday afternoon, adding that security forces had been acting with "self restraint."
Further dashing hopes for a political solution to the crisis, the government announced it may disband the Muslim Brotherhood and even outlaw the movement, the spokesman added.
The Brotherhood was reticent, calling on supporters to continue protesting every day for the next week in what they called a "Week of Departure," an extension of their Friday protests.
Friday's violence killed at least 173 people across the country, 95 of those killed in Cairo. Some 1,330 people were injured in those clashed and 1,004 were arrested—more than half in Cairo—according to the government.
But with the government's apparent encouragement of the popular committees on Saturday, it seemed that Egypt was headed for further divisions and violence on the streets between ordinary civilians.
The popular committees first came out in full force Friday night, during the clashes in Ramses Square between antigovernment protesters and security forces.
Egyptian civilians created new security checkpoints on major roads, patrolling their neighborhoods armed with guns, sticks and machetes, against what they said was the threat of Brotherhood protesters.
"We're looking for terrorists," said one of these civilians, as he popped open car trunks in downtown Cairo as Egypt's military curfew approached.
At up to a half-dozen points in the city before dusk, members of several of these bands could be seen breaking up sidewalks and piling up the debris to create checkpoints to stop strangers from entering their neighborhoods.
That capped what Brotherhood protesters called a Day of Rage—called to mourn the dead after Egyptian security forces cracked down Wednesday on supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi, leaving more than 600 people dead.
Friday's violence consumed the entire country, with clashes between pro-Brotherhood protesters and security forces spreading to the Mediterranean coastal town of Damietta, the Suez Canal town of Ismailia; in Fayoum, south of Cairo; and in Tanta, in the Nile Delta.
At least 31 bodies were viewed late Friday afternoon in al Fatah Mosque, which turned into a makeshift morgue after protesters on Ramses Square drew fire from a police station there. The square was the center of protests on Friday, after supporters of Mr. Morsi gathered at 28 mosques across greater Cairo to attend noon prayers before converging on the square.
One of the marches that reached Ramses Square on Friday started after noon prayers at the Nour Mosque in the Abassiya district of Cairo. There, Brotherhood supporters mourned those who were killed earlier in the week during the clashes at Raba'a al Adiwiya and Nahda squares. As in many other mosques, a heated sermon riled emotions.
"We hope for quick investigations about the massacres that happened, or else curses from heavens and earth will fall on us," the imam of the mosque said over a loudspeaker. "God, please make Egypt an Islamic state, support freedom on earth, destroy tyrants."
Such sentiments met stiff opposition at close range. Residents of Abassiya, which is also home to Egypt's Ministry of Defense, grumbled about the Brotherhood. "Tell Obama the truth—we don't accept this terrorism!" said one onlooker, as a group of about 50 men lined the sidewalk behind him, glaring toward the mosque.
The group from Nour Mosque reached Ramses Square, joining other streams to form a crowd of several thousand people.
At around 2 p.m., as part of the crowd moved toward a police station on the square, a few young boys started throwing rocks. Other protesters tried to stop them. Then came the sound of gunfire—swiftly, without apparent warning or the use of tear gas, a typical crowd-control measure.
Hundreds of protesters stampeded down a bridge, one of the many that crisscross above Ramses Square.
By around 3:30 p.m., the nearby Al Fatah Mosque had received dozens of injured and dead. At least 31 bodies, many apparently dead from gunshot wounds, could be seen laid out on the mosque's green-carpeted floor. More bodies were brought in on planks or the seats of wooden benches, which had been turned into emergency gurneys.
Volunteer medical staff struggled to get dozens of injured out of the square, where they could receive medical attention. Fights broke out at the mosque's bloodstained steps as friends and family members tried to enter to check if their loved ones were there.
Inside the mosque, volunteer doctors performed simple surgeries or administered CPR. The white coats and abayas of the doctors and nurses were stained with blood and iodine. Piles of medicine lay atop two broad tables.
One medic vigorously pumped down on a dying protester's chest, the right side of his face swollen with the bullet lodged in his head, open flesh revealing brain matter. Cotton swabs soaked in blood circled his head.
The medic tried to revive the man's heart for a few minutes, finally placing his hands on the floor, dropping his head. "It's done," the medic said. Onlookers began to wail.
Back in the streets of Ramses Square, a crowd turned on a man in civilian clothes, alleging he was with Egyptian security forces and had shot into the crowd.
Several protesters were seen hitting him with poles while others tried to protect him. His bloodied body was retrieved by some protesters, his head swaying side to side, unconscious. It was unclear whether he was dead, or where he was being taken.
"He's military," one man explained.
—Margaret Coker and Leila Elmergawi contributed to this article.


text:
Source: Display Search Blog
quote: "Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan
quote: How many times do we need to say it?
quote: Jobs (like any CEO) was NOT in the business of giving out free advice to his competitors and the public. WHATEVER he said, he said to advantage Apple at that point in time.


text:
Top Definition
man that david spade is such a pouf
von cathie 25. August 2003
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Smoking cover-up device. A device in which one breathes through to cover up the smell of smoke. (Usually a paper towel roll folled with fabric softener.)
Dude, pass the pouf, Franky took a hit and we can't let the RA smell it.
von Smokes 11. Oktober 2005
The mountain of hair on top of Snooki's head, logically created by a Bump-It
Snooki's rocking the pouf tonight just like the old days and she looks hot
von Sam1238 27. Januar 2011
When a jungle of hair, on or around the anus, is placed in one's mouth for sexual pleasure.
Heath loves when the other men of his dorm provide him with pouf in the public showers.
von Boss Nig 28. Oktober 2009


text:
Now more than ever, we need your support! Become a Supporting Subscriber today.
2 Timelords to visit Middle Earth!
With The Hobbit finally getting its greenlight recently Peter Jackson is looking to cast the film so that they can start shooting come this February.
It is being said that former 10th Doctor David Tennant AND former 7th Doctor Sylvester McCoy are both being courted for casting in the upcoming Hobbit film. David's role is so far unknown but it is being said that Sylvester may be cast as Radagast the Brown.
2 Timelords in Middle Earth?? Awesome!


text:
Thursday, September 5th
12:00 pm - 1:00 pm
This webinar will focus on what the new healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, means for small businesses. It will focus on both federal and state provisions to help local small business owners understand how the law will affect them. Topics being discussed include:
To register:
Copyright © 2011 Campbell County Chamber of Commerce. All rights reserved.314 S. Gillette Ave., Gillette, WY 82716Phone: (307) 682-3673 | Fax: (307) 682-0538 | email@example.com
| Site Map


text:
Here are some tips to help you find what you're looking for :
0 items
You didn't find what you were looking for?
Take a look at the 2016 collection or get ideas
from our Trends.
In order to offer you the very best service available, Maisons du Monde uses cookies.By continuing to browse, you accept their use. To find out more, click here