[Vision2020] Fw: CRAPO: THIS GLOBAL WARMING BILL DID NOT ADD UP

[Ted Moffett]

Saundra and ya'al

...And short term economic pressures that result in ignoring the massive
long term economic impacts of climate change don't add up either.

Nuclear waste is a major problem, along with the potential for a terrorist
attack on nuclear facilities, proliferation of nuclear material, the impacts
of uranium mining (nuclear fission based on uranium is, unless I've got the
physics wrong, not a renewable resource, even with breader reactors creating
more nuclear fuel, given uranium will deplete), the huge costs of nuclear
plant construction, the fact that nuclear power plants have a limited life
span, then require expensive "moth balling."

However, coal power, 50% of US electric generation, has killed more people
by far than nuclear power, with thousands of people with respiratory illness
effected.  Pollution from China's out of control coal fired plants, with new
plants coming on line every week (no joke!), drifts across the Pacific,
raising air pollution levels at times in California to a level that gives
little room for industries in California to pollute, and not exceed the air
quality standards. Mercury emissions from coal fired plants has negative
impact on wildlife and humans.  And the CO2 emissions from coal are
gigantic, and potentially can increase dramatically globally.  Coal can be
made cleaner, but CO2 sequestration is expensive and currently only an
experimental technology.

Newer nuclear plant designs are now safer, and nuclear waste can be reduced
with more advanced processes, and stored in a safer form.  Consider France,
Japan and Sweden. all relying heavily on nuclear power, with a good safety
record, and waste management practices that people in those nations accept.

I don't like nuclear or coal, but if the choice is between catastrophic
climate change from continued massive CO2 emitting coal burning, or massive
roll out of nuclear to replace coal, maybe nuclear should be promoted, if it
truly replaces coal, and is not just another energy source promoting more
energy intensive economic expansion while coal burning continues apace.

Of course, this is a false choice, I think, given that there is sufficient
wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave et.al. renewable energy to supply most
of our needs, even transportation energy for cars and trucks, especially if
coupled with conservation and changes in life style.  Save oil for powering
jets, for example, and other very energy intensive technology, that cannot
be powered except by either oil, coal to liquid, or biofuels. We can keep a
high standard of living with mostly renewables, in my opinion.  Oil should
be saved for all the other uses so important in the manufacture of products,
plastics, etc.

Although I try to remain optimistic about the energy/climate change crisis
(both problems must be solved simultaneously), I doubt radical change will
happen for decades, perhaps too late to head off extreme climate change.
Oil and coal are too entrenched as energy sources given current economic
models and life styles to make the switch to renewables quickly.  Here in
the US we have a "Saudi Arabia" size oil resource in the oil shale in
Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, which is on the drawing board for development,
though it is expensive and difficult to process. And though oil
is increasing in price, coal remains cheap and abundant.  Nations heavily
dependent on oil for their economies will resist giving up this income in a
transition to renewables.  Corporations who are heavily invested in coal and
oil will resist the change.  High oil prices might just force a switch to
coal to liquids to power transportation, and coal is abundant on Earth.
This is one reason why high oil prices may not in the long run reduce CO2
emissions globally very much.  The CO2 emission potential from coal is
greater than from oil.

I wish I had a crystal ball to view our world in 100 years... I suspect our
world in 2108 will be far more different than we are different now from
1908.

Ted Moffett

On 6/9/08, Saundra Lund <sslund_2007 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "Crapo said the bill should have included more incentives for clean-burning
> energy technology like nuclear power production."
>
> Just one of MANY reasons I didn't vote Mr. "Let's Pretend Nuclear Waste
> isn't a Real Problem."
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.
> ~ Edmund Burke
>
> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008 through life
> plus 70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce
> outside the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
> author.*****
>
>
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080609/50fcdf94/attachment-0001.html