[Vision2020] Spokane's Solar Building: Scientist James Lovelock: 'Only Nuclear Power Can Now Halt Global Warming'

[Ted Moffett]

Dave et. al.

The views of scientist James Lovelock on nuclear power as a solution
to anthropogenic climate change referenced in this thread are years
old.  Two of the sources quoting Lovelock were from 2004 and 2006.
There was nothing "arranged" about this thread relating to current
news stories.  It was merely a continuation of a discussion that has
been ongoing for years, on energy sources to allow lowering of fossil
fuel related CO2 emissions.

While I would rather conservation, efficiency, lifestyle changes,
lowering the global birth rate, and rapid roll out of non-nuclear
alternative energy be the approach to slow anthropogenic climate
change, I recognize that nuclear power can play a role, given the hard
facts of energy demands with an expanding population and increasing
industrialization, and the limitations of many forms of alternative
energy.
For example, some areas in the world have little wind and limited sun;
and solar only generates power during the day, unlike coal and
nuclear, which can increase power generation on demand 24/7.

I agree that the CO2 emissions from nuclear power are not as low as
some claim.  The mining of uranium, the construction and maintenance
of nuclear power plants, and the waste processing and storage, all
have significant fossil fuel powered impacts.

However, the track record of nuclear power in France, Japan and in
Scandinavia, all in nations that have much lower per capita CO2
emissions than the USA, with a much higher percentage of their energy
derived from nuclear power, is evidence nuclear power is not as
dysfunctional as nuclear power opponents claim; and that it can be a
part of an energy strategy aimed at lowering CO2 emissions.

Of course, the "corporate welfare" for nuclear power industries,
mentioned in the report you quoted, is certainly a problem, especially
if this is substituted for federal encouragement of adoption of
alternative energy technology.  Solar, wind and other forms of
alternative energy should be massively supported with tax breaks and
subsidies, given the national security, indeed the planetary wide
threat, posed by anthropogenic climate change, and costs of roll out
of these technologies.

Solar power could be partially powering millions of homes, allowing
lowering of coal power related CO2 emissions.  But solar is expensive
to install, with the return on the investment taking a decade or more.
 There is a new "Green" building in Spokane that has solar on the
roof.  Those involved in the construction and financing of this
building estimated it would take 12 years for the solar panels to pay
for themselves.  Because of the initial expense of solar installation,
tax breaks and subsidies to encourage roll out of solar are certainly
just as important, if not more so, than subsides for corn based
ethanol (greatly a corporate welfare program for Archer Daniels
Midland) and the nuclear power industry.  Federal assistance for
energy industries should be aimed at the best use of the money to
lower CO2 emissions, not for hand outs to corporate entities with the
most well funded lobbyists.  As James Lovelock is quoted to state in a
Rolling Stone magazine interview, "Green is the color of mold and
corruption."

Info on Spokane's new "Green" building:

http://sustainable-spokane.blogspot.com/2007/10/saranac-first-platinum-certified-green.html

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On 12/18/07, Dave <tiedye at turbonet.com> wrote:
> Funny this should hit the "news" and thus this list right now (actually
> it's not funny since it was obviously arranged). This was the subject of
> one of Amy's segments on Democracy Now! yesterday. There is $25 billion
> of our money to be appropriated for corporate welfare to the nuke
> industry in the current spending bill.
>
> Personally I feel no industry should be allowed to exist if it knows not
> what to do with its waste, period!
>
> A quote from her guest, Mr. Harvey Wasserman:
> > And there's absolutely no demand for new nuclear plants. There's no
> > reason to build them. They don't work. Even with optimum conditions of
> > licensing and so on, they couldn't get a reactor online for another
> > ten years. They've been saying the nuclear power plants are a solution
> > to the global warming problem; we know they make global warming worse.
> > You know, it's a total scam. And they are continuing to take of
> > taxpayer money, public money, to build reactors where we don't need
> > that kind of financing for wind, for solar, for tidal, geothermal, the
> > other forms of green energy, which can be community-controlled.
> (I think there is a typo in the last sentence)
>
> Here's the link:
>
> http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2007/12/17
>
> Dave
> a.k.a. dave, info, music, and krfp -at- krfp
> (It's been suggested that I shouldn't post anything but announcements
> with my KRFP account, and they are probably right. So now I receive 2X
> the V2020 posts, plus all the spam of our two public accounts receive
> because they are on the web, plus about five radio lists, sigh. )
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>