<div>Saundra and ya'al</div>
<div> </div>
<div>...And short term economic pressures that result in ignoring the massive long term economic impacts of climate change don't add up either.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, this is a false choice, I think, given that there is sufficient wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave <a href="http://et.al">et.al</a>. 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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/9/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Saundra Lund</b> <<a href="mailto:sslund_2007@verizon.net">sslund_2007@verizon.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">"Crapo said the bill should have included more incentives for clean-burning energy technology like nuclear power production."<br>
<br>Just one of MANY reasons I didn't vote Mr. "Let's Pretend Nuclear Waste isn't a Real Problem."<br><br><br>Saundra Lund<br>Moscow, ID<br><br>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.<br>
~ Edmund Burke<br><br>***** 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.*****<br>
<br><br><br>=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>