Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

We Can't Wait for Politicians to Embrace Clean Energy

By Kelpie Wilson, TruthOut.org. Posted October 15, 2007.


Politicians in Washington are years away from embracing a massive investment in clean energy. We must start an energy revolution ourselves.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kelpie Wilson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Conventional wisdom among environmentalists today says it would be unwise to pass a major climate change bill too soon. As long as the Bush veto looms and Republicans retain the filibuster club in the Senate, any climate change bill that passes through that birth canal is likely to be a stunted, shriveled thing. Better to wait until a strong bill can be passed than establish a weak policy now.

But energy is supposed to be different. President Bush has admitted that America is "addicted to oil," and he is a big booster of technology as the solution to global warming. At his major economies meeting on climate change in September, Bush called for an international fund to help developing nations finance clean-energy projects to stem climate change. But when he refused to offer a funding commitment or any other mechanism to implement the plan, international delegates turned up their noses and said they would wait till 2009 to engage the US on climate.

You might expect that Bush would be more willing to put his money where his mouth is where the US is concerned, but that does not seem to be the case.

Both houses of Congress passed energy bills last summer. The Senate, in particular, made a big effort to produce a bi-partisan consensus. Environmentalists are calling the new energy bill "a down payment on efforts to combat global warming." But President Bush has not come out in support of either the House or Senate version of the bill.

Meanwhile, getting both houses of Congress to sit down and reconcile what are two very different bills has been difficult. In early September, Democrats sent discouraging signals about any bill passing this session. Perhaps they heard from their constituents, because by the end of the month, Senator Reid was promising to appoint conferees soon. It was to have been last week and has now been postponed until after the Senate gets back from its Columbus Day recess. On Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with other Democrats to discuss bringing an energy bill directly to the floor.

There is no question that public support for clean renewable energy is at an all time high. This is showing up at the state level where 31 states have now passed some sort of mandate to produce energy from solar, wind and other renewable sources. The National Governor's Association is proceeding to coordinate programs as best it can in the vacuum of federal energy policy. At an NGA forum on renewable energy, Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (a Republican) said, "Energy is the defining issue of our time. The public is way ahead of the politicians ... there is enormous running room for policy makers to make significant advances ... there's an urgency to this issue, and none of us, Democrats, Republicans, politicians and the public have acted as urgently as we need to."

With such strong public support, why have the Democrats found it so difficult to produce an energy bill?

Cars, Coal and Nukes

One problem has been Michigan Rep. John Dingell, who chairs the House energy committee. Backing the position of Detroit automakers, Dingell refused to allow any increase in CAFE fuel mileage standards.

And while the House bill has no CAFE increase, the Senate bill lacks a Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The House passed an RES requiring utilities to generate 15 percent of their power from renewable sources (mostly solar, wind and biomass) by 2020. The US is one of the few nations left that has not adopted such a standard, but Bill Wicker, on the staff of Senate energy committee Chair Jeff Bingaman, said that the Republicans "blocked every effort" to include a national RES in the Senate energy bill.

Matt Letourneau, energy policy aide to Sen. Pete Domenici, the ranking member of the Senate energy committee, said that a national RES would be unfair to some regions of the country that don't have abundant renewable resources, particularly the Southeast. He said the standard is too high and it is "not possible" to get 15 percent of the region's power from renewable energy.

But Scott Sklar, a solar energy lobbyist, said that there is plenty of renewable energy in the Southeast. "The Southeast is biomass rich and solar rich. Solar could provide 5-6 percent of the region's power, wind, 1-2 percent, and biomass, 10-15 percent. The waste biomass from Hurricane Katrina alone could provide power for 30 years." Utilities can also substitute up to 4 percent of the target with increases in efficiency.

Lynn Hargis, a former attorney with FERC, who now works for Public Citizen monitoring energy regulation, said that the real problem is giant utility companies in the South like Duke, Entergy and Southern Company that want to make huge profits selling cheap coal-generated power in unregulated markets.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: congress, energy, global warming, climate change, renewable energy, coal

Kelpie Wilson is Truthout's environment editor. Trained as a mechanical engineer, she embarked on a career as a forest protection activist, then returned to engineering as a technical writer for the solar power industry.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
You are shooting yourself in the foot to oppose nuclear
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nuclear power is safe and would be cheaper than coal if paranoid people would
go be paranoid about something else. COAL is the Global Warming culprit,
and each 1000 Megawatts of coal fired power plant that is replaced with nuclear
saves 4 Million tons of carbon per year. That is 4 Million tons of coal. That is
14.7 Million tons of carbon dioxide saved for each 1000 Megawatts of coal fired
power plant that is replaced with nuclear.
AS THE ARTICLE SAID: What YOU want is politically and maybe
economically impossible. Wind and solar power are great, in my opinion, but
they just don't fit the electric utility industry. Solar and wind require energy
storage solutions for night time when there is no wind. Solar, wind and energy
storage are all expensive. The electric companies see them as foreign. If you
quit fighting the electric utility industry and only fight the coal companies, you
will have fewer people and less money against you. Divide and conquer. Just
concentrate on stopping C-O-A-L. You can do that by supporting nuclear
power. If you wish to invest your own money in solar and wind, that is good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've read your posts Posted by: Philip Newton
» BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Posted by: Coleman
Uranium in coal
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Yucca Mountain is full of fuel that needs to be reprocessed.
2. Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock.
The average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois
coal contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal
fired power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4
million tons by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is
U238. About .7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% =
56 pounds of U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56
to 112 pounds of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go:
Up the stack or into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the
air and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant.
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is
U235. The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal
fired power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes
U235 in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a
briefcase.
3. See the rest of Alex Gabbard's article. U238 can be bred into Plutonium and
Thorium can be bred into Uranium. We can fuel our nuclear power plants for
CENTURIES just by extracting uranium and thorium from coal cinders and
smoke.
4. See: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/coalmain.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We used to reprocess "spent" nuclear fuel rather than waste it
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't believe that terrorists groups will be able to steal uranium.
The place it goes that it isn't supposed to go is Israel. This
happened in a small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A
company called Numec was in the business of reprocessing
nuclear fuel. Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. Numec is
no longer in business. Terrorists can't compete with Mossad and
Israeli dual citizens who are CEOs of companies like Numec.
Israeli nuclear weapons are exact duplicates of American nuclear
weapons. All persons who were "born of Jewish mothers" are
citizens of Israel regardless of any other fact. Since the US can't
and shouldn't discriminate, the reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the
US stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at
that time, given that private corporations did the reprocessing.
My solution would be to reprocess the fuel at a Government
Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a GOGO
plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion
would disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any
unauthorized place. Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pebble bed reactors
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:03 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Terrorists cannot cause a meltdown of our newest nuclear reactors
because shutdown is accomplished by a law of nature rather than
by control rods. Stopping coolant flow removes the space
between fuel pellets. The space between fuel pellets must be
filled with moving water. The water is the moderator to slow
down the neutrons so that the reaction can take place. No
coolant flow, no reaction.
These pebble bed reactors will never experience a meltdown.
It just can't happen because of laws of nature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why a Nuclear Powerplant CAN NOT Explode like a Nuclear Bomb
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bombs are completely different from reactors. There is nothing similar about
them except that they both need fissile materials. But they need DIFFERENT
fissile materials and they use them very differently. Nuclear power is NOT a
derivative of a bomb. Nuclear power was thought of Before the bomb.
A nuclear bomb "compresses" pure or nearly pure fissile material into a small
space. There is no other material in the volume containing the nuclear explosive.
The fissile material is either the uranium isotope 235 or plutonium. If it is uranium,
it is at least 90% uranium 235 and 10% or less uranium 238. There is no isotope
separation problem if the fissile material is plutonium. These fissile materials are
metals and very difficult to compress. Because they are difficult to compress, a
high explosive [high speed explosive] is required to compress them. Pieces of the
fissile material have to slam into each other hard for the nuclear reactions to take
place.
A nuclear reactor, such as the ones used for power generation, does not have
any pure fissile material. The fuel may be 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium
238. A mixture of 2% uranium 235 mixed with uranium 238 cannot be made to
explode no matter how hard you try. A small amount of plutonium mixed in with
the uranium can not change this. Reactor fuel still cannot be made to explode like
a nuclear bomb no matter how hard you try. There has never been a nuclear
explosion in a reactor and there never will be. [Uranium and plutonium are
flammable, but a fire isn't an explosion.] The fuel is further diluted by being
divided and sealed into many small steel capsules. The fuel is further diluted by
the need for coolant to flow around the capsules and through the core so that heat
can be transported to a place where heat energy can be converted to electrical
energy. A reactor does not contain any high speed [or any other speed] chemical
explosive as a bomb must have. A reactor does not have any explosive materials
at all.
As is obvious from the above descriptions, there is no possible way that a
reactor could ever explode like a nuclear bomb. Reactors and bombs are very
different. Reactors and bombs are really not even related to each other.
Reccomendation: Nuclear power is the safest kind and it just got safer. Convert
all coal-fired power plants to nuclear ASAP. See the December 2005 issue of
Scientific American article on a new type of nuclear reactor that consumes the
nuclear "waste" as fuel.
I do not have any financial stake in the nuclear industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Natural background radiation that has always been there
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Background radiation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which
primarily come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface
and subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne
dust and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the
bombardment of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays.
Since 1945 it also comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due
to nuclear testing.
Contents

1 Natural background radiation
1.1 Cosmic radiation
1.2 Terrestrial sources
1.3 Radon


2 Artificial "background" radiation
3 Artificial radiation sources
4 Other usage
5 References

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic
radiation, terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose
for a human being is about 2.4 mSv per year [1] (pdf). This exposure is mostly
from cosmic radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.


Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for
terrestrial radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources
has been decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present
dose from potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life
on Earth. Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive
isotopes, such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal
radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest
contributor to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most
variable in the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and
Aberdeenshire in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels
that nuclear licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed
legal radiation limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would
all have to be disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ACK! Posted by: Coleman
Chernobyl
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A scientist/engineer from Oak Ridge National Lab wrote to me: "The reactor that
had the accident at Chernobyl was very out-of-date (1st generation) design that
has to be precisely controlled to prevent cooling water from boiling. Water
carries away heat and moderates far better than bubbles, and as bubbles form in
water, the reactor goes increasingly unstable. What caused Chernobyl to blow its
top was residual water in the core suddenly going to high pressure steam and
erupting into a steam explosion. Since the building top was simply resting by its
weight on the walls, not a containment vessel at all, the steam explosion burped
the top off its position allowing outside air in, subsequently igniting a carbon
fire." The United States and other Western countries DO NOT now build and
do not now posses or operate ANY reactors of such primitive design. Nor do we
allow containment buildings to have easily removable tops. Containment
buildings in the Western hemisphere are required to be pressure vessels."
The Chernobyl accident released only 200 tons of radioactive material, as
much as a coal-fired power plant would release in 7 years and 5 months. The
Chernobyl accident had a shorter "stack" than coal-fired power plants. The
radioactive material was released in a short time at ground level. That is why the
Chernobyl accident had impact. Only 52 people died at Chernobyl , mostly fire
fighters, a hazardous job in any case. The Three Mile Island incident did NOT
release a noticeable amount of radiation into its neighborhood, it was just
expensive to clean up the inside of the reactor. Nobody died and nobody was
injured at Three Mile Island.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sequestering CO2
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Gore's Live Earth Pledge has a fatal flaw: "the capacity to safely trap
and store the CO2." There is no safe way to confine trillions of tons of
CO2 at high pressure for ever. For Ever is a lot longer than the 100000
years that people want nuclear "waste" to be stored. The CO2 WILL
leak out and suffocate millions of people. CO2 is denser than air and
displaces air at ground level. CO2 has caused suffocation in Africa. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1155057.stm

"Cameroon's 'killer lake' degassed"
"More than 1,700 people died after deadly gases spewed from Lake Nyos
15 years ago. "
"In August 1986, the lake released a cloud of carbon dioxide which
hugged the ground and flowed down surrounding valleys to suffocate
thousands of local villagers and animals.

The rare phenomenon also occurred at Lake Monoun in the same volcanic
zone two years earlier killing 34 people. "

The CO2 storage facilities proposed by Al Gore, besides being prone to
leak, will be a target for terrorists. A terrorist has only to cause a leak to
kill more people than a nuclear bomb would. Leaks are very easy to
cause in high pressure containers. CO2 storage is a silent disaster waiting
to happen.

The pledge Should read: "I will learn enough about nuclear physics so that
I will no longer be paranoid about nuclear power. I will advocate the
replacement of coal fired power plants with the newest nuclear power
plant designs."

I [Asteroid Miner] have no financial or other interest in nuclear power
and no connection with the nuclear power industry.

It is HOT CO2 that goes up smolestacks. Being hot it is less dense so it
goes up and disperses. Stored CO2 is cool. A gas gets colder as it leaks
out from high pressure to low pressure. That is the secret of air
conditioning. CO2 at the same temperature as air is denser than air
because CO2 is a heavier molecule than N2 or O2. The cold CO2 will
stick to the ground and suffocate people and other animals. No other gas
is required to explain the deaths in Cameroon. Here in the US, more CO2
will leak out into areas with more people, so the death toll could be in the
millions.

Yes, I know that wind stirs the CO2. That didn't help when there was no
wind. Yes, I know that they are talking about the CO2 being absorbed
into coal. MAYBE it will stay there if the pressure is released. It seems
like a reversable process until proven otherwise. Yes, I know that they
are talking about the CO2 being stuck in small spaces in porous rock.
MAYBE it will stay there if the pressure is released. For how long?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Illinois power Posted by: solrev
Our extinction
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 1:52 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
from the October 2006 issue of Scientific American
Article: "Impact from the Deep"
"Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and
sea, not asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass
extinctions. Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions
build once again? "
By Peter D. Ward
The last paragraph of the article says:
"The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the
Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under
1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic,
CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around
385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric
carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the
end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the
beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That
is something our society should never find out."
The hydrogen sulfide will finally put an end to the mining of
coal. Nuclear power is the safest available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Octane
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 15, 2007 2:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The #1 carbon dioxide emitter is coal fired power plants. And, the emitters of
the most toxins are: coal fired power plants, leaf fires...........

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars and other
vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel, etc. are half hydrogen. For
example, octane is C8H18. To figure out what fraction of the energy is from
burning the carbon, you have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide
and the heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2, but it
takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the arithmetic and apportion the
energy between the carbon and the hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy
required to break down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the
hydrogens than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD,
MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine,
Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium,
Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum
and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though transportation uses more
energy, coal fired power plants put more CO2 into the air.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter. Industrial processes
are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial processes is concrete making even
though the energy used is less. The first step in concrete making is heating
limestone [calcium carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium
oxide. Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater source of
CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making, metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions is to convert
all coal fired power plants to nuclear. So get over your paranoid fears of all
things nuclear and get it done.

The greatest amount of smoke in the US is from burning leaves. Leaf smoke is
just as good at causing cancer as tobacco smoke. Leaf smoke is also the #1
allergen because it contains pyro-proteins and formaldehyde. Partly burned
proteins and formaldehyde are very easy to become allergic to. It should be very
easy to put a stop to leaf burning because nobody has a real need to burn leaves.
The only things that have to be changed are attitude, tradition and local laws
prohibiting people from putting leaves in trash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Octane Posted by: BlackbirdHighway
» RE: Octane Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Concrete and Steel vs. Silicone
Posted by: Philip Newton on Oct 15, 2007 4:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Asteroid:

As I posted on my reply to your first post:

Explain to me how a centrally-produced and transmitted power source like nuclear, with its enormous consumption of concrete (leading cause of CO2 emissions) and (last I checked) economically non-viable operation (without Federal subsidies, they lose money) and immense short-term start-up costs (born by the taxpayers) would be superior to say, solar, which is rapidly becoming economically self-supporting, is ecologically sustainable from raw source materials extraction to manufacture and operation, and which produces energy on-site.

Solar, wind, bio-mass, tidal and small-systems hydro power are high-tech or new-tech industries with often very low-tech applications. Solar installation can be learned and implemented with junior college-level training. These technologies can be implemented now, not later, and they do not require the production of radioactive waste or require carbon sequestration. These, combined with sensible bio-fuel production and hydrogen fuel technology, would, in my opinion, generate more power at less cost, with less environmental damage than either nuclear or "clean" coal.

I don't propose elimnating any option. However, I do not want to support expensive, risky and potentially problematic options with my tax dollars.

PS, I note in your last post that you (correctly) identified concrete production as the leading industrial source of CO2 emissions. You also correctly identify the production of steel as a leading source of COs emissions. Nuclear power plants require massive amounts of concrete and steel. How does this cipher in your calculus?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Explain to me how" Posted by: jsong123
» RE: "Explain to me how" Posted by: Philip Newton
Hey nuke dudes, what about the future?
Posted by: Beck on Oct 15, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do either of you have kids? You might feel a bit differently about the great legacy you're leaving the rest of our kids and grandkids, on and on, if you did.

This is sort of the principle of evolution in reverse, perhaps. Maybe too many people without kids or without any concern about future kids are willing to throw caution to the winds so we can have exactly what we want, right here and now.

And when you blather on with endless long posts, they just get scrolled past. I wonder if one person in 100 will read them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comment Imbalance
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Oct 15, 2007 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I notice that of the 13 comments so far posted on this article, 10 are from one person. These ten comments appear for the purpose of promoting atomic energy whereas the article itself addresses the broader need for developing sources of clean energy.

There are certainly two sides to the question of whether atomic energy is a "clean" energy source. While one side observes (correctly) that these plants do not produce CO2 while operating, they usually ignore the use of fossil fuels used during plant construction, fuel processing and mining, and storage of spent fuels. They also ignore the costs associated with protection of atomic power plants against terrorists.

There is also the question of whether, given all of these problems and the real cost of insurance, whether these plants are at all cost effective.

I don't pretend to be an expert in these issues or to know the answers. However, I do know that the issue is not so one-sided as would be indicated by a ratio of ten comments in favor of atomic energy vs. three against or on other issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mighty big hole... Posted by: Philip Newton
» "storage of spent fuel" Posted by: Beck
Excellent article. Individuals who are concerned about the environment...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 15, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...should not wait for their paid-for Congresscritter to make them behave the way they would like to behave.

If you think solar panels would work well on your roof, buy them and pay someone to install them as the author suggests.

If you live where it's windy, put up a windmill and connect it to a generator and some long-life batteries (reusable hydrogen cells would be ideal that would store hydrogen produced from the wind energy that could break down rainwater into H2 and O2...)

If you live in the south/sunbelt, Mr. Sunshine and a medium-sized re-insulatable (it drops down under ground at night) thermal tank would provide the hot water needs needs of a four-person family for about 7-9 months out of the year that ambient air temps don't negate radiant heat from the sun.

And--aside from the newest solar panels and some nifty hydrogen cells--most of that "technology" is at least 100 years old....

....which is a great place to start:

bicycles, walking more, planning trips better, putting groceries in a duffel bag instead of plastic...

...in addition to somewhat promising (at least on paper) technology like geothermal energy harvesting.

There are lots of options besides begging one's Congresscritter to make one quit wasting resources! That's like complaining to China that their products are so cheap that we can't help ourselves (which, by the way, is one popular line of "thinking" amongst our Con(punt)gressional "leadership").

Great article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hmmm...I said don't wait. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» I don't post to rattle your dogma. Posted by: ABetterFuture
The Democrats could still fight for environmental policies regardless of what's against them.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 15, 2007 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, it doesn't matter about the filibustering and vetoing that's likely to happen. Either the Democrats have the courage or they don't and quite frankly, they don't because they too are sucked up by Big Oil/Coal/Nuclear interests.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using the military to drive the transition to a post-carbon world
Posted by: whiskeyrapids on Oct 15, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military has always been an early adopter of new technologies, and there are many reasons why the military might be one way to help drive the adoption of green energy technologies.

First, weaning the military off fossil fuels would mean that oil would be far less of a national security issue, and there would be less reason to have troops shedding blood to protect the flow of oil.

Second, the military is probably a large enough a market to allow for production capacity to scale up (and costs to be driven down) to the point that green energy technologies will be more affordable and more rapidly adopted by the rest of society.

Third, the military-industrial complex and their supporters would likely not resist an opportunity to profit from this huge opportunity to build a fighting force that is not reliant on foreign sources of energy. New plants would be opened and new jobs would be created.

Finally, the military-industrial complex would become an incubator for skilled people ready to take their knowledge to the private sector where the technologies would be further refined, improved, and deployed.

Today, the military-industrial complex is a big part of the problem. Why not make it part of the solution?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saddest truth about Nuclear
Posted by: DrSuess on Oct 15, 2007 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether nuclear energy is a viable option or not is irrelevant- America cannot use nuclear BECAUSE WE ARE NO LONGER A NUCLEAR POWER. For 30 years- no native born Americans have gone into physics. I was one of the American born last students to get a degree in physics- and that was in the 70’s. Since then, the physics and engineering (and all the other hard sciences) have graduated less than a trickle of American born students. Americans have almost totally boycotted the hard sciences. Now all the trained scientists who could run such facilities are born in other lands. Do we really want scientists born in Iran running our nuclear reactors? (Especially with Bush’s and Cheny’s bluster) Or perhaps the Chinese would be a better choice? Indians anyone?

Bush worries incredibly about the dangers of your pocket knife on a plane- and anyone who brings a lighter is definitely a member of Al Quida. But I worry far more about the foreign born scientists who run all of our scientific labs. If we went to war with India- the US would loose- because so many of the scientists who are critical to the workings of this country come from there.

Nuclear is off the table- at least for America. We cannot from within our own country build and run a nuclear faculty anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Saddest truth about Nuclear Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Saddest truth about Nuclear Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Sunlight, wind and photosynthesis without fossil fuel inputs - that's the future
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 15, 2007 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will be how the future generates and stores energy in the absence of fossil fuels.

Sunlight falling on the Earth is an incredibly abundant energy source - it just has to be tapped. The equatorial regions have the highest inputs of solar - 1000 watts/ square meter. These regions are now called "The Third World" but they will be the energy powerhouse regions of the future.

More northerly and southerly regions will rely heavily on wind power, which is also an abundant and largely untapped energy source. Already, old oil drilling rigs are being converted to gigantic floating offshore wind power generators.

This will mean the end of the fossil fuel power structure that currently controls the global economy, and they don't want to see it happen. Thus they have trotted out a vast number of PR campaigns, such as:

1) The "personal responsibilty theme" promoted by PR monkey "ABetterFuture" above - this is an exact mimic of the tobacco lobby's "personal choice" PR theme - we don't need government intervention or regulations, 'cause it's all about "personal choices".

2) The "nuclear energy theme" promoted by AsteroidMiner above. Nulcear is a dead end, but with billions in government loan guarantees and laws that remove liabilty from nuclear corporate interests, the likes of GE think they can make a lot of money at it.

We do need a major government program to promote renewables - why can't we have billions in loan guarantees for solar PV manufacturing factories (the U.S. is now in in fourth place in this area, behind Japan, Germany and China!)?

Why can't we have tax breaks and incentives for wind power corporations? That would lead to serious growth in that industry, and would also produce thousands of well-paying jobs and would stimulate the domestic economy as well.

Why can't we have a serious, nationwide program that promotes fossil fuel-free agriculture? We can run all our farms on renewable solar and wind - we've got powerful electric motors that can run farm machinery, for example. Once we have fossil-fuel free agriculture up and running, we can then start talking about truly sustainable biofuel production from biomass.

That's the future - but U.S. politicians are largely controlled by entrenched fossil fuel and energy interests (just look at the Iraq oil invasion, for example), and so they're refusing to take any real action. Al Gore is doing a lot - but he's outside the entrenched political system, isn't he?

It's time to let the politicians know that they serve the people of this country, not the international oil corporations, investment banks, Saudi oil shieks, and oil and energy speculators.

neurolingo.gnn.tv

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuclear Power Is NOT CLEAN. GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS.
Posted by: lrrysgl on Oct 15, 2007 11:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50 per cent of global warming.

Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste.

In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations.
Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so.
These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease.
Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT CLEAN OR SAFE
Posted by: lrrysgl on Oct 15, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across are never addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33 tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year.
Already more than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material is an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years.
But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. The US Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 150km northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for America's high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults. Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the US Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the US now has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory.
To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation - significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists.
This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the US includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases.
The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people.

Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature.
Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia.
Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma.
Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I saw Bill McKibben on Friday...
Posted by: smendler on Oct 15, 2007 1:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and he was putting a lot of emphasis on political solutions, mostly regulatory in nature, to implement carbon caps and make them stick.

(His answer to the nuclear question, by the way, was that while he thought that nukes posed less greenhouse risks per se than fossil fuels -- i.e., there's 100% chance that another coal plant will make the problem worse -- they still aren't economically feasible without huge gov't subsidies... and that the economics are what will torpedo nukes being a viable solution. He pushes for more decentralized generation/distribution, along with conservation and lifestyle changes....)

So I asked him if he thought our political system as presently structured would really be able to respond adequately within the available timeframe, given all the external pressures (lobbyists etc) against change. His answer was kinda Rumsfeldian, now that I think about it -- he thought that we were pretty much stuck with the system we have, that we wouldn't be able to change it sufficiently, so we had to make the best use possible of the resources and tools available to us.

Me, I suspect that wide-ranging political change will happen only when the extent of the catastrophe becomes inarguably clear... but I am not sure that the change that will happen at that point will be in the direction we desire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is what Bruce Sterling calls "Khaki Green"...
Posted by: smendler on Oct 15, 2007 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Global Warming Solutions
Posted by: brauerdave on Oct 15, 2007 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Correct me if I am wrong, but if we are looking to stop/reduce the effects of global warming? Also, some ways I am aware of that contribute the least to warming are 1) Nuclear, 2) Wind, 3) Solar, 4) Geothermal. and 5) for transportation a) Electric – batteries, b) Compressed air, and c) Hydrogen powered fuel cells

1) Nuclear – Although it has been around for over 50 years there are still safety questions both short term (facility safety) and long term (storage of the waste). It is not clear to me that these issues have been adequately addressed to say go forward NOW.
2) Wind – Wind farms are a good source of electric power. The problems are:
a. The esthetics of the view for those rich enough to view the sea where a large number of farms would be and
b. Possible intermittent power generation.
3) Solar – This works best in areas that get lots of sun during the day (although research could make it work with an acceptable level of effectiveness in cloudy areas) combined with the power grid of our electric companies it is a good source of long term power. The problems are:
a. No power at night
b. Requires batteries for off the grid use (and for emergencies- it would also call for manual intervention or special equipment to ensure that when the “grid is down” your power generation doesn’t electrocute repair workers).
4) Geothermal – Heat energy from the earth. There are 2 methods, a) Large heat energy source best used for heating a city/town and generating electricity and b) Individual home heat pumps.
a. Large Heat source – In the US our best known source is in Yellow Stone Park. Problems and potential problems are:
i. Unknown consequences from diverting heat from the area to electric generation.
ii. Changing the natural view of the park.
b. Individual home heat pumps – This is a good source of energy that reduces some global warming. It uses the natural temperature of the earth to heat or cool the home. The problems:
i. You still need another power source (electric) to operate but it takes less energy than a heat pump that uses the in outside air because of the greater variation in air temperature.
ii. Potential loss of efficiency of the under ground pipes.
5) Transportation energy
a. Batteries – Good source for mostly short trips using small cars. The problems are: will not discuss problems.
b. Compressed Air – No pollution from exhaust and a good source for mostly short trips using small cars. Will not discuss problemsi.
c. Hydrogen powered fuel cells – No pollution from exhaust, will be able to propel vehicles of all sizes for similar distances as is currently expected, the fuel source is almost unlimited (water), and it will eliminate our country’s dependence on middle east oil. The problems are:
i. No vehicles of this type under manufacture.
ii. Need other facilities for the process of splitting water (H2O) into hydrogen (for use) and oxygen.
iii. Need hydrogen transportation methods and service station storage and dispensing capabilities.

In my opinion, Congress and the President must encourage ALL of the above alternatives (but the nuclear alternative only after extensive research, review, and public agreement as to the safety). I strongly support the hydrogen powered fuel cell approach and suggest that congress underwrite the service station storage and dispensing capabilities and encourage vehicle construction and the water splitting process facilities.

Finally, I believe that it is in our (the US) best interests to begin development of water desalination facilities on the coasts of the lower 48 states to enable food production when the changes brought about by global warming reach there peak.

Dave Brauer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hydrogen Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Like listenin' to a crack dealer bemoan addiction to crack
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 15, 2007 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush has admitted that America is