Yay nuclear power! My power at home comes from a nuclear power plant, and it's great!
It seems that whoever gets into office becomes inebriated with the power of the purse and engages in an orgy of spending. War efforts always take cash, but what's been happening the last 5 years is more than that. Republicans have, indeed, forgotten what they stand for.
Nukes, yes. Windmills, I don't think so. Think of all the birds! Besides, they are rather seasonally and geographically dependent.
While your second points are accurate, Anna, studies have shown that very few birds are killed by wind farms. Seems they are smart enough to fly around. If I can dig up that study, I'll post it here.
Here you go:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/
...on_misconce.php
Thanks, Ryan. It was indeed the CA situation of which I had read and in a very conservative and reliable magazine on various potential energy sources. I love birds. Can you tell? They also do wonders to keep the rodent population down which makes them useful.
Still, the studies I have seen on windpower indicate that it is unreliable as a long term energy solution, or have you additional updated info on that as well?
Not sure, but it still might be cost effective in some locales. Nuclear really is the way to go, IMO.
I have no problem with the concept of nuclear power, as long as we can build these facilities in as isolated locations as possible (no more TMIs - I know industry studies say no significant radiation was leaked, but I have seen firsthand evidence of the contrary). Also, why risk it if we don't have to? Secondly, we need to come up with a better solution for dealing with the waste than dumping it into our abandoned mines. With those assurances, I think it is a reasonable solution. Of course, to recognize that is to say that it should be a possiblity for other nations as well, which opens up a whole other can of worms...Iranian worms, to be specific.
Nuclear should be part of the energy-independence package, for sure. But I'd also like to see the whole package of alternative techologies seriously implemented - wind, tide, solar, geothermal.
Also we need to resurrect the idea of conservation. Not the old "less is more" philosophy, but we simply need to replace inefficent technologies, by Federal mandates if necessary. For example, new homes should be required to be energy self-sufficient as much as possible. There are lots of off-the-shelf technologies like in-ground heat pumps, solar pre-heaters for hot water, wastewater heat capture, and of course solar panels. Every new home should be wired to give back to the grid. Right now it is a pain to retrofit a home with this stuff, but if it's bought at wholesale and built into new homes, it's a no-brainer.
And we need new (sensible) CAFE-type standards for cars.
To me, it seems that from a historical standpoint, regulations that increase costs have a detrimental effect on sales due to higher prices or lower profits, and result mostly in businesses finding ways to circumvent or just pass the regulation.
Except that houses and cars, if they are built inefficiently today, will be inefficient for decades, and the market will not have a chance to react. Actually, the EER ratings on appliances are an example of a successful efficiency mandate. New air conditioners and refrigerators are much more efficient than they used to be, and industry doesn't seem to be looking for back-door ways to sell the old inefficient models.
A related note:
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots... Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change... The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly two billion tons of CO2 annually---the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300-million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur-dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33--Patrick Moore, Ph.D., co-founder of Greenpeace
percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination. Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release
of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually---the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100-million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity were generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.
I bet they won't generally move in that direction, though. Once the Leftist mind gets an image stuck in its head it seems like most can never summon the courage to become iconoclastic enough to shatter it based on fact, logic and evidence. So they run with the Herd and look for the "consensus" imagery instead.
Commenting by HaloScan
