[Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy SecretaryChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy
bear at moscow.com
bear at moscow.com
Fri Jul 10 17:25:15 PDT 2009
Ah yes Kai, but now you're discriminating against those who's religion
forbids consumption of alcohol! But I get your point and agree. There is
no way 100% of the peoples of the earth will be happy with what ever
source is used. And if we stop using oil based energy, what happens to the
countries that only have oil as a natural resource? There is no easy
solution.
Wayne
> It doesn't matter what form of energy generation we use, somebody will
> always oppose it.
>
> Wind: Ugly towers that chop up birds.
> Nuclear: We'll all glow in the dark
> Dams: Fish die
> Tidal: More fish die, and sea mammals might get tangled in cabling and die
> Solar: Only works half the day, in a small part of the world and takes up
> a lot of space in deserts, destroying habitat.
> Burning anything: Used emit pollution, now emit greenhouse gasses
> Thermal: Good in a few, limited places. would work in Hawai'i, especially
> on the Big Island, but it's a religious no-no, so it was a no-go.
>
> The solution to the problem is small batch whiskey.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Moffett
> To: Paul Rumelhart
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy
> SecretaryChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy
>
>
> The acidification of the oceans (scientific studies on this issue given
> lower down) resulting from the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2
> humanity has dumped into the atmosphere is a significant pollution
> problem that is predicted to have serious negative impacts on marine
> organisms and ecosystems that will effect human civilization. This
> problem alone is good reason to lower CO2 emissions. Of course the
> physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas increasing atmospheric temperature is
> well established science, that is questioned by implementing strategies
> of skepticism that can undermine many well established theories in
> science, strategies that are employed vigorously by those with an agenda
> to block action to address anthropogenic climate change.
>
> 4th generation fast or breeder reactor nuclear power plants could be
> built by the dozens in the US to replace coal fired plants. Coal has
> more potential as a source of CO2 emissions than oil (read NASA's James
> Hansen's presentation on this issue given lower down). Even if we
> totally replaced oil as an energy source with alternatives (a good idea
> if for no other reason than to save oil for its value as a product
> generating resource
> http://www.energy4me.org/questions/products_from_oil.htm ), the abundant
> coal reserves of the US, the largest of any nation, will remain cheap
> and tempting for energy .
>
> There should be a moratorium on new coal fired plants that do not
> sequester CO2 (which is currently not a proven technology that is
> affordable and practical for wide scale implementation); and nuclear
> offers a replacement electricity generation technology that can be sited
> where the energy is needed, in areas with little wind or limited solar,
> that is base load power, and that does not impact agriculture or
> ecosystems in the way biofuels can. I'm not sure there is any other
> energy technology that is practical and available that can offer all the
> advantages of 4th generation nuclear reactors, while lowering CO2
> emissions. Maybe deep drilling for geothermal to generate power where
> geothermal is not close to the Earth's surface, but I am uncertain if
> this technology will be practical. If it is practical, I wonder why
> this technology is not being aggressively developed?
>
> It is ironic and hypocritical for many in the environmental movement to
> oppose nuclear power, while they turn on their lights at home powered by
> coal fired plants that have and are inflicting more environmental damage
> and causing more death and disease than nuclear power.
>
> The opposition to nuclear power is in part a result of its association
> with nuclear weapons testing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the threat of
> nuclear war. The few significant nuclear power plant accidents
> (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island), that are a result of inferior design,
> have put the public at far less risk than coal fired plants, which cause
> the premature death of tens of thousands annually from respiratory
> disease and other impacts, and pollute lakes and rivers with mercury
> http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5433 . If humanity was
> operating in a sane manner, we would be using nuclear power much more
> instead of coal, and never have developed nuclear weapons much less used
> them against civilian targets.
>
> A case for nuclear power is presented in the following presentation by
> NASA's climate scientist James Hansen, that addresses many of the common
> objections to nuclear power:
>
> http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf
> -------------------
> Ted Moffett
> -------------------
> NOAA article on results of study of ocean acidification:
>
> International Scientists Find ‘Acidified’ Water on the Continental Shelf
> from Canada to Mexico
>
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080522_oceanacid.html
>
> "Acidification of the Earth's ocean water could have far-reaching
> impacts on
> the health of our near-shore environment, and on the sustainability of
> ecosystems that support human populations through nourishment and jobs,"
> said Richard W. Spinrad, NOAA assistant administrator for oceanic and
> atmospheric research.
>
> “Our findings represent the first evidence that a large section of the
> North
> American continental shelf is seasonally impacted by ocean
> acidification,”
> said Feely. “This means that ocean acidification may be seriously
> impacting
> marine life on our continental shelf right now.”
> The findings will be published May 22 in the online journal *Science
> Express
> *. “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Water onto the
> Continental Shelf” was written by Richard A. Feely and Christopher
> Sabine,
> ---------------
> Science journal article on ocean acidification:
>
> Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737
>
> From article above:
>
> Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts
> per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to
> 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past
> 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under
> conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean
> acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming
> increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef
> communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained.
> Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water
> quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly
> toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents
> future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious
> consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection,
> and people. ---------------
>
>
> On 7/9/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to amend my statement to say that we should invest in any
> other type of *non fossil fuel* energy that we can find. I think we
> should get off of oil as much as possible as quickly as possible for a
> variety of reasons, mostly politics, the dangers to our economy of
> being
> dependent upon oil when peak oil hits, and pollution concerns
> (including
> CO2 if global warming is indeed happening).
>
> Paul
>
> lfalen wrote:
> > Paul is right. We should pursue all avenues is the search for
> alternative energy and at the same time develop all sources of oil
> where it is economically feasible.
> > Roger
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
> > Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:57:59 -0700
> > To: Tom Hansen thansen at moscow.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy
> Secretary ChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy
> >
> >
> >> I'm afraid I don't have the authority to speak for France.
> >>
> >> I think we should create more base energy with more nuclear plants,
> and *also* invest in wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave
> power, and any other type of power we can find. We're going to
> need the energy.
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy
> Secretary Chu About the Future of Nuclear Energy
> >> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> >> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>, "Ted Moffett"
> <starbliss at gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 2:34 PM
> >>
> >> Paul Rumelhart stated:
> >>
> >> " . . . the half-life of the waste by-products would be reduced to
> decades
> >> instead of thousands of years. The waste is more manageable . . .
> "
> >>
> >> That certainly explains why France wants to dump their nuclear
> waste right
> >> here in Idaho, instead of Nevada where the locals are up in arms
> over
> >> their current pile of "manageable" nuclear waste, or at home in
> France
> >> where . . . uh . . . uh . . . why isn't France securing their own
> nuclear
> >> waste, Paul?
> >>
> >> Why not create energy with windpower . . .
> >>
> >> http://www.windpowerexpo.org/
> >>
> >> The waste produced by windpower is far more manageable, probably
> because
> >> there isn't any.
> >>
> >> And, besides, this gives me an opportunity to share my favorite
> song from
> >> "Paint Your Wagon" with y'all . . .
> >>
> >> "They Call the Wind Maria"
> >> http://www.TomandRodna.com/Songs/Wind_Maria.mp3
> >>
> >> Seeya round town, Moscow.
> >>
> >> Tom Hansen
> >> Moscow, Idaho
> >>
> >> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
> change
> >> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
> >>
> >> - Unknown
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ==============================================================================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list