<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18783">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>It doesn't matter what form of energy generation we
use, somebody will always oppose it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Wind: Ugly towers that chop up birds.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Nuclear: We'll all glow in the dark</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Dams: Fish die</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Tidal: More fish die, and sea mammals might get
tangled in cabling and die</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Solar: Only works half the day, in a small part of
the world and takes up a lot of space in deserts, destroying
habitat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Burning anything: Used emit pollution,
now emit greenhouse gasses</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Thermal: Good in a few, limited places. would work
in Hawai'i, especially on the Big Island, but it's a religious no-no, so it was
a no-go.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The solution to the problem is small batch
whiskey.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=starbliss@gmail.com href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">Ted Moffett</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=godshatter@yahoo.com
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">Paul Rumelhart</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Moscow Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 10, 2009 3:31 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor
Otter Asks US Energy SecretaryChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <A
href="http://www.energy4me.org/questions/products_from_oil.htm">http://www.energy4me.org/questions/products_from_oil.htm</A> ),
the abundant coal reserves of the US, the largest of any nation, will
remain cheap and tempting for energy . </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <A
href="http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5433">http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5433</A> .
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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf</A><BR>-------------------</DIV>
<DIV>Ted Moffett</DIV>
<DIV>-------------------</DIV>
<DIV>NOAA article on results of study of ocean acidification:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>International Scientists Find ‘Acidified’ Water on the Continental
Shelf<BR>from Canada to Mexico</DIV>
<DIV><BR><A
href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080522_oceanacid.html"
target=_blank>http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080522_oceanacid.html</A><BR><BR>"Acidification
of the Earth's ocean water could have far-reaching impacts on<BR>the health of
our near-shore environment, and on the sustainability of<BR>ecosystems that
support human populations through nourishment and jobs,"<BR>said Richard W.
Spinrad, NOAA assistant administrator for oceanic and<BR>atmospheric
research.<BR><BR>“Our findings represent the first evidence that a large
section of the North<BR>American continental shelf is seasonally impacted by
ocean acidification,”<BR>said Feely. “This means that ocean acidification may
be seriously impacting<BR>marine life on our continental shelf right
now.”<BR>The findings will be published May 22 in the online journal *Science
Express<BR>*. “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Water onto
the<BR>Continental Shelf” was written by Richard A. Feely and Christopher
Sabine,<BR>---------------<BR>Science journal article on ocean
acidification:</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean
Acidification<BR><BR><A
href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737"
target=_blank>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From article above:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>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. ---------------
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 7/9/09, <B class=gmail_sendername>Paul
Rumelhart</B> <<A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target=_blank>godshatter@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote></SPAN> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>I would like to amend my statement to say that we should
invest in any<BR>other type of *non fossil fuel* energy that we can
find. I think we<BR>should get off of oil as much as possible as
quickly as possible for a<BR>variety of reasons, mostly politics, the
dangers to our economy of being<BR>dependent upon oil when peak oil hits,
and pollution concerns (including<BR>CO2 if global warming is indeed
happening).<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR>lfalen wrote:<BR>> 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.<BR>> Roger<BR>> -----Original message-----<BR>> From:
Paul Rumelhart <A href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target=_blank>godshatter@yahoo.com</A><BR>> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009
15:57:59 -0700<BR>> To: Tom Hansen <A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"
target=_blank>thansen@moscow.com</A><BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho
Governor Otter Asks US Energy Secretary ChuAbout the Future of Nuclear
Energy<BR>><BR>><BR>>> I'm afraid I don't have the authority to
speak for France.<BR>>><BR>>> 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.<BR>>><BR>>>
Paul<BR>>><BR>>> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Tom Hansen <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target=_blank>thansen@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> From: Tom Hansen <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"
target=_blank>thansen@moscow.com</A>><BR>>> Subject: Re:
[Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy Secretary
Chu About the Future of Nuclear
Energy<BR>>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <<A
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target=_blank>godshatter@yahoo.com</A>><BR>>> Cc: "Moscow Vision
2020" <<A href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank>vision2020@moscow.com</A>>, "Ted Moffett" <<A
href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"
target=_blank>starbliss@gmail.com</A>><BR>>> Date: Wednesday, July
8, 2009, 2:34 PM<BR>>><BR>>> Paul Rumelhart
stated:<BR>>><BR>>> " . . . the half-life of the waste
by-products would be reduced to decades<BR>>> instead of thousands of
years. The waste is more manageable . . .
"<BR>>><BR>>> That certainly explains why France wants to dump
their nuclear waste right<BR>>> here in Idaho, instead of Nevada where
the locals are up in arms over<BR>>> their current pile of
"manageable" nuclear waste, or at home in France<BR>>> where . . . uh
. . . uh . . . why isn't France securing their own nuclear<BR>>>
waste, Paul?<BR>>><BR>>> Why not create energy with windpower .
. .<BR>>><BR>>> <A href="http://www.windpowerexpo.org/"
target=_blank>http://www.windpowerexpo.org/</A><BR>>><BR>>> The
waste produced by windpower is far more manageable, probably
because<BR>>> there isn't any.<BR>>><BR>>> And, besides,
this gives me an opportunity to share my favorite song from<BR>>>
"Paint Your Wagon" with y'all . . .<BR>>><BR>>> "They Call the
Wind Maria"<BR>>> <A
href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/Songs/Wind_Maria.mp3"
target=_blank>http://www.TomandRodna.com/Songs/Wind_Maria.mp3</A><BR>>><BR>>>
Seeya round town, Moscow.<BR>>><BR>>> Tom Hansen<BR>>>
Moscow, Idaho<BR>>><BR>>> "The Pessimist complains about the
wind, the Optimist expects it to change<BR>>> and the Realist adjusts
his sails."<BR>>><BR>>> -
Unknown<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>><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/"
target=_blank>http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>
mailto:<A href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
target=_blank>Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>