[Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy Secretary ChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy

Fri Jul 10 15:31:47 PDT 2009

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<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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090710/13f49173/attachment-0001.html 