Fish ladders only work with fish that jump such as salmon but they don't work for fish that do not jump.
They don't address other problems with dams either, such as the forced relocation of millions of people. Dams also create at least one more environmental problem, the wildlife on the land behind the dam is drowned. Flooded underwater organic matter goes through anaerobic decomposition producing methane, which is more than 20 tymes more potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Lakes also form which increases the surface area of the water allowing more evaporation of water and evaporated water is another potent greenhouse gas. So using dams to cut on greenhouse gas emissions does not work.
Then there's the economic feasibility to be considered.
That is a funny thing to say considering that in 2007 the U.S. gave 4,875 million dollars to renewables (81% in Tax credits) opposed to 1,267 million dollars to nuclear (72% R&D) and 5,451 million dollars to Coal/Petroleum/Natural Gas.
According to the freemarket think tank CATO, and business magazines "Forbes" and "Fortune" nuclear power would not be profitable without government subsidies, which go directly to large businesses. Most subsidies for alternative energy goes to those who buy these systems for their own use. According the article "Nuclear energy relies on taxpayer subsidies" nuclear power gets more in subsidies than what you say. According to the article "Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, natural gas"
"Congress created a $20 billion loan guarantee program for constructing new nuclear power plants; a $2 billion subsidy for developing uranium enrichment facilities in the United States; $2 billion in risk insurance for nuclear power plants facing delays due to regulations or public opposition; a $1.3 billion subsidy for decommissioning older nuclear power plants; $1.2 billion in reactor research; a $0.018 per kilowatt-hour subsidy for electricity produced by new nuclear power plants; and liability protections worth billions of dollars."
Falcon
BS. Mining for nuclear fuel is probably the dirtiest mining there is.
Per tonne of fuel, compared to coal? Probably. Per generated watt? Not a chance. If we allowed modern reprocessing reactors, the balance would tilt even further in nuclear's favor.
Yea coal mining especially mountain top removal is very dirty. But uranium mining is too. As is reprocessing. As I've said elsewhere the leader in reprocessing, France, still has problems with it.
I found it amazing that the father of all things liberal
Kennedy isn't the father of all things liberal. In the US Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others were the father of liberalism. They wanted liberty and small government.
you can have Arnie "the governator" too;
He turned put to be a real disappointment.
So for you liberals, welfare whores
Like those who came before me, this is one liberal who hates welfare, whether social welfare or corporate welfare. I hate big government and I want it to be small and want a free market.
My reply to the post was more centering around the theoretical "limited" amounts of uranium resources
And my post you replied to said nothing about there being a "theoretical limit" to fuel.
My whole post was to point out that without government subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable. For profit businesses would not build nuclear power plants if they did not get subsidies, had to buy their own insurance from an insurance company, did not have limits on the amount of damages they had to pay, and had to clean up their waste.
If you look at my post again, nowhere did I say that nuclear power was cheaper than wind power. Merely that it was cheaper than wind power when taking into account the grid upgrades that would have to be done to concentrate wind in productive areas
And if you look at my post again you'll see those upgrades to the grid have to be done anyways. As I said the current grid "cost the nation $80 billion to $188 billion per year" which can be avoided if modernized. Whether or not wind farms are built the grid has to be upgraded anyway. Even with new nuclear power plants. What you're doing is applying upgrade costs to wind but not nuclear power.
We can't just plop down half a million wind mills in north dakota and power america off that
All the wind farms need not be in the Dakotas, North and or South. The Rocky Mountains from Texas to Canada has a lot of wind potential. So does does west Texas west to California then up the coast to British Columbia. And as I've said repeatedly, there are also good sites in the east.
It just ultimatley may make more sense to use nuclear to deliver power to population centers away from large wind resources. Though I do agree with you on the necessity of grid upgrades.
With those upgrade it makes no sense to build new nuclear power plants. With an upgrade solar and wind can provide plenty of power. For a baseline, until mass energy storage is worked out, natural gas fired power plants can be used. Unlike coal plant they are quick and easy to ramp up production of electricity.
Cheap, proven, clean, unsubsidied, nuclear energy thank you.
Nuclear power is neither clear nor unsubsidized. The world's largest producer of nuclear power is France, and it dictates nuclear power plant be built and pays for them. SO does China, India, and Russia. The European Pressurized Reactor being built in Finland is "beset by long-running construction problems, schedule and cost overruns, and all-round hilarious ineptitude and controversy." And "is already running three years behind schedule due to a multitude of factors including quality control issues." It is also being built by Areva which is owned and subsidized by the government of France.
There's some uranium in the ground (which is actually poisoning our wells and room air in eastern part of Finland).
And you don't think mining more won't be worse? Fact is is without subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable.
You are failing to take into account for the costs of nuclear power the vast amoung of money that must be spent on PR and the like
I didn't take the cost of PR into account because neither it nor nuclear power is needed.
to get the public to allow the safest means of mass energy production we have due to their insane and irrational fear of anything with the word nuclear in it.
Not everyone opposes nuclear power because of some nebulous fear. Ask the Navajo about the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo Reservation. Or some First Nations in Canada. Or the Aboriginals in Austrailia. Ask France about the nuclear spills there.
Sounds ideal to me, why not harvest it and burn it again?
I don't know, a cogeneration power plant could burn the methane and boost power. In a sense that's something that puzzles me about oil companies, drilling, and pumping. Those flares at oil pumps are burning methane, when it could be used to generate power.
The problem is is greenhouse gases would still be being pumped into the atmosphere.
If we stopped subsidizing power generation tomorrow all that would happen is bills would go up (and hopefully taxes down) and we might get a chance to produce some fairly clean power for once.
I oppose almost all subsidies. As one say subsidies are meant to be temporary support until whatever is being subsidized is on it's feet. Unfortunately those receiving subsidies have become powerful and constantly demand more and more subsidies.
Now if all these old methods of electrical generation weren't subsidized they'd be more expensive and other methods could compeat.
The point is, maybe the US are unable to build profitable nuclear power, but that doesn't make nuclear power unprofitable.
Except that even a Freemarket think tank and business magazines say that even China, France, India, and Russis doesn't have profitable nuclear power plants. Or do you not consider the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or Fortune reputable.
The same stands for uranium mining. Just because the US has one/some mines that have issues,
And what of other nations? The US isn't the only nation that has had problems with uranium mining. Canada has had problems, so has Austrslia.
I dug out the following page about nuclear power in Finland.
I have one question and one problem. The question is is nuclear power profitable in Finland without government subsidies? And the problem is is that that webpage is on the industry's website and is therefor biased. Sure, the links I provided are to websites that are biased as well, but they are biased to the free market and business. If there were money to be made in nuclear power, without government subsidies, they're be at the head of the line in support of nuclear power.
The margin for survival in the deserts is MUCH lower.
Which is one reason, though by far not the only one, I oppose the border fence in the Southwest.
I'm actually kind of sick of east coast people deciding that that deserts of the west are completely expendable for their own gains, but their native local habitats are not.
Yea, that really pisses me off about the environmentalists on the East Coast. Offshore from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras there are excellent cites for wind farms, however NIMBYs there fight against them. Especially Kennedy.
The only real energy solutions is probably a mixture of "alternative" fuels that don't compete with food crops, solar/wind, tidal, nuclear, and conventional fuels, as the region demands
Agreed but I'd add one thing, "Rebuilding the Power Grid. Not only build a long distance High Voltage Direct Current infrastructure but make the grid smart.
The only people who think wind turbines are a good idea are naive Greenists and wind turbine companies.
And those who think they are a bad idea are investors in and or workers for other power companies if not fools. I am neither one of your "Greenists" nor work for a wind turbine company. I'm not an investor in one either. What I am is someone who thinks there is no "1 answer" to the question of where energy will come from. We need a mix of different energy sources. And preferably none will get government subsidies, like coal and nuclear power.
I'm curious, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty for nuclear power, and for what? Are you talking about waste disposal or accident insurance or what?
I wouldn't penalize nuclear power but I would stop giving them massive subsidies. Nuclear Power is "Hooked on Subsidies". Even in China, France, India, and Russia. "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
But is it practical? It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.
Last I read there's not one "clean coal" plant in production. But there are a number of both solar and wind farms in production. Do you recall the rolling blackouts in CA in 2000? What most people do not know is that there was an idle wind farm that could have been contributing more than 200 megawatts of electricity but wasn't.
Keep in mind, there is plenty of scope to reduce demand as well (better insulation, fluro bulbs, etc).
Yea, I've said that before. With proper insulation a candle should be enough to heat a room, if a body isn't. And with good ventilation there shouldn't be much need for cooling. CFLs, which I have in all of my light fixtures but and that one I rarely use, only use 1/3 to 1/4 the energy incandescent lights do. However LEDs use only 10%. Unfortunately they're expensive and currently they're only good for spot lighting.
Economically you've got it all wrong. Nuclear power wouldn't be used if not for massive subsidies but wind, which does get subsidies as well, does not get anywhere near as much. In a world without subsidies wind could survive but not nuclear power.
Far lower than building windmills and their acompanying grid infrastructure requirements to get the power from the wind centers to where it needs to go.
If anything was learned during and after the blackout in the Northeast it was that the electrical grid had to be upgraded and made smart. So the cost is there whether or not wind is used. According to the article "Rebuilding the Power Grid" in "Tech Review" "Grid-related power outages and problems with power quality reportedly cost the nation $80 billion to $188 billion per year."
And of course plastics can be and are recycled in whole or in part
Originally plastics wasn't made from petroleum oil. Do you recall Cellophane? It got it's name from plant cellulose. Kodak used to make film from cellulose as well. Plastics made from plant cellulose came to an end when DuPont received a patent for nylon in 1935. However new research is going on in bioplastics.
There may be enough wind in the world to supply our need 40 times over, but is the cost of tapping the energy source competitive with the cost of coal, gas, or nuclear power?
All of this get subsidies, as well as pass costs to others. Coal slurry spills happen all too frequently. Mountain top removal contaminates a lot of land. As does uranium mining. Without government subsidies nuclear power isn't even profitable. Though natural gas emits a lot less CO2 than coal when burned it releases a lot more methane, which is more than 20 tymes as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Then it needs pipelines to deliver it.
We know that there are all sorts of natural energy sources around us, but its the financial cost that keeps us from recovering it.
More like it's politics. If financial costs were that important there would be no nuclear power. As I said before even coal gets subsidies. "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies". In "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!' Rep Edward Markey goes over some of the subsidies different energy sources get.
It seems to me we'd have to rape the earth in a way most of us would consider fairly extreme to erect giant concrete towers on every square meter of ocean and land.
Not even close. In the US the Rock Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to power the 48 continuous states. I think that's what the Picken's Plan calls for. However the Southwest on up the Pacific Coast is also good. To the east from the Appalachians north to the Poconos and Catskill Mountains contains a lot as does offshore from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod. Unfortunately there are a lot of NAMBYs along the coast who don't want wind farms offshore. Kennedy is one of them fighting to stop wind farms in Cape Cod.
The ecolgical impact of billions of tonnes of raw materials being mined would be astronomical.
You have that with all sources of energy. If you don't want mining then you don't get energy.
Personaly I think that we really ought to build more nuclear power plants. Yes there is waste but overall it is fairly clean and cheap and would do more for preserving the environment and supplying electricity than this would.
BS. Mining for nuclear fuel is probably the dirtiest mining there is. Reprocessing, sure fuel can be reprocessed but as the world leader in reprocessing France found it leaves behind a lot of toxic chemicals. Not only that but if not for massive government subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable, it may actually loose money. Here's an article from a Wall Street Journal blog: "It's the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power's Bogeyman. The Freemarket think tank CATO reprinted this Forbes article "Hooked on Subsidies. Notice this paragraph:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Slashdot Mirror
It is called a fish ladder, check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder
Fish ladders only work with fish that jump such as salmon but they don't work for fish that do not jump.
They don't address other problems with dams either, such as the forced relocation of millions of people. Dams also create at least one more environmental problem, the wildlife on the land behind the dam is drowned. Flooded underwater organic matter goes through anaerobic decomposition producing methane, which is more than 20 tymes more potent as CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Lakes also form which increases the surface area of the water allowing more evaporation of water and evaporated water is another potent greenhouse gas. So using dams to cut on greenhouse gas emissions does not work.
Then there's the economic feasibility to be considered.
Falcon
That is a funny thing to say considering that in 2007 the U.S. gave 4,875 million dollars to renewables (81% in Tax credits) opposed to 1,267 million dollars to nuclear (72% R&D) and 5,451 million dollars to Coal/Petroleum/Natural Gas.
According to the freemarket think tank CATO, and business magazines "Forbes" and "Fortune" nuclear power would not be profitable without government subsidies, which go directly to large businesses. Most subsidies for alternative energy goes to those who buy these systems for their own use. According the article "Nuclear energy relies on taxpayer subsidies" nuclear power gets more in subsidies than what you say. According to the article "Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, natural gas"
"Congress created a $20 billion loan guarantee program for constructing new nuclear power plants; a $2 billion subsidy for developing uranium enrichment facilities in the United States; $2 billion in risk insurance for nuclear power plants facing delays due to regulations or public opposition; a $1.3 billion subsidy for decommissioning older nuclear power plants; $1.2 billion in reactor research; a $0.018 per kilowatt-hour subsidy for electricity produced by new nuclear power plants; and liability protections worth billions of dollars."
Falcon
BS. Mining for nuclear fuel is probably the dirtiest mining there is.
Per tonne of fuel, compared to coal? Probably. Per generated watt? Not a chance. If we allowed modern reprocessing reactors, the balance would tilt even further in nuclear's favor.
Yea coal mining especially mountain top removal is very dirty. But uranium mining is too. As is reprocessing. As I've said elsewhere the leader in reprocessing, France, still has problems with it.
Falcon
I found it amazing that the father of all things liberal
Kennedy isn't the father of all things liberal. In the US Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others were the father of liberalism. They wanted liberty and small government.
you can have Arnie "the governator" too;
He turned put to be a real disappointment.
So for you liberals, welfare whores
Like those who came before me, this is one liberal who hates welfare, whether social welfare or corporate welfare. I hate big government and I want it to be small and want a free market.
Falcon
Also it works well with the phrase "namby pamby", ie pansy/wuss-like.
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. I'll try to keep in in mind.
Falcon
My reply to the post was more centering around the theoretical "limited" amounts of uranium resources
And my post you replied to said nothing about there being a "theoretical limit" to fuel.
My whole post was to point out that without government subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable. For profit businesses would not build nuclear power plants if they did not get subsidies, had to buy their own insurance from an insurance company, did not have limits on the amount of damages they had to pay, and had to clean up their waste.
If you look at my post again, nowhere did I say that nuclear power was cheaper than wind power. Merely that it was cheaper than wind power when taking into account the grid upgrades that would have to be done to concentrate wind in productive areas
And if you look at my post again you'll see those upgrades to the grid have to be done anyways. As I said the current grid "cost the nation $80 billion to $188 billion per year" which can be avoided if modernized. Whether or not wind farms are built the grid has to be upgraded anyway. Even with new nuclear power plants. What you're doing is applying upgrade costs to wind but not nuclear power.
We can't just plop down half a million wind mills in north dakota and power america off that
All the wind farms need not be in the Dakotas, North and or South. The Rocky Mountains from Texas to Canada has a lot of wind potential. So does does west Texas west to California then up the coast to British Columbia. And as I've said repeatedly, there are also good sites in the east.
It just ultimatley may make more sense to use nuclear to deliver power to population centers away from large wind resources. Though I do agree with you on the necessity of grid upgrades.
With those upgrade it makes no sense to build new nuclear power plants. With an upgrade solar and wind can provide plenty of power. For a baseline, until mass energy storage is worked out, natural gas fired power plants can be used. Unlike coal plant they are quick and easy to ramp up production of electricity.
Falcon
Cheap, proven, clean, unsubsidied, nuclear energy thank you.
Nuclear power is neither clear nor unsubsidized. The world's largest producer of nuclear power is France, and it dictates nuclear power plant be built and pays for them. SO does China, India, and Russia. The European Pressurized Reactor being built in Finland is "beset by long-running construction problems, schedule and cost overruns, and all-round hilarious ineptitude and controversy." And "is already running three years behind schedule due to a multitude of factors including quality control issues." It is also being built by Areva which is owned and subsidized by the government of France.
There's some uranium in the ground (which is actually poisoning our wells and room air in eastern part of Finland).
And you don't think mining more won't be worse? Fact is is without subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable.
Falcon
You are failing to take into account for the costs of nuclear power the vast amoung of money that must be spent on PR and the like
I didn't take the cost of PR into account because neither it nor nuclear power is needed.
to get the public to allow the safest means of mass energy production we have due to their insane and irrational fear of anything with the word nuclear in it.
Not everyone opposes nuclear power because of some nebulous fear. Ask the Navajo about the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo Reservation. Or some First Nations in Canada. Or the Aboriginals in Austrailia. Ask France about the nuclear spills there.
Sounds ideal to me, why not harvest it and burn it again?
I don't know, a cogeneration power plant could burn the methane and boost power. In a sense that's something that puzzles me about oil companies, drilling, and pumping. Those flares at oil pumps are burning methane, when it could be used to generate power.
The problem is is greenhouse gases would still be being pumped into the atmosphere.
Falcon
If we stopped subsidizing power generation tomorrow all that would happen is bills would go up (and hopefully taxes down) and we might get a chance to produce some fairly clean power for once.
I oppose almost all subsidies. As one say subsidies are meant to be temporary support until whatever is being subsidized is on it's feet. Unfortunately those receiving subsidies have become powerful and constantly demand more and more subsidies.
Now if all these old methods of electrical generation weren't subsidized they'd be more expensive and other methods could compeat.
Falcon
The point is, maybe the US are unable to build profitable nuclear power, but that doesn't make nuclear power unprofitable.
Except that even a Freemarket think tank and business magazines say that even China, France, India, and Russis doesn't have profitable nuclear power plants. Or do you not consider the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, or Fortune reputable.
The same stands for uranium mining. Just because the US has one/some mines that have issues,
And what of other nations? The US isn't the only nation that has had problems with uranium mining. Canada has had problems, so has Austrslia.
I dug out the following page about nuclear power in Finland.
I have one question and one problem. The question is is nuclear power profitable in Finland without government subsidies? And the problem is is that that webpage is on the industry's website and is therefor biased. Sure, the links I provided are to websites that are biased as well, but they are biased to the free market and business. If there were money to be made in nuclear power, without government subsidies, they're be at the head of the line in support of nuclear power.
Falcon
oil companies have replaced The Elders of Zion or Rothchilds
Except Rothschild is Jewish and was in oil. Rothschild Investment Trust controls Royal Dutch Shell Oil.
The margin for survival in the deserts is MUCH lower.
Which is one reason, though by far not the only one, I oppose the border fence in the Southwest.
I'm actually kind of sick of east coast people deciding that that deserts of the west are completely expendable for their own gains, but their native local habitats are not.
Yea, that really pisses me off about the environmentalists on the East Coast. Offshore from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras there are excellent cites for wind farms, however NIMBYs there fight against them. Especially Kennedy.
The only real energy solutions is probably a mixture of "alternative" fuels that don't compete with food crops, solar/wind, tidal, nuclear, and conventional fuels, as the region demands
Agreed but I'd add one thing, "Rebuilding the Power Grid. Not only build a long distance High Voltage Direct Current infrastructure but make the grid smart.
Falcon
The only people who think wind turbines are a good idea are naive Greenists and wind turbine companies.
And those who think they are a bad idea are investors in and or workers for other power companies if not fools. I am neither one of your "Greenists" nor work for a wind turbine company. I'm not an investor in one either. What I am is someone who thinks there is no "1 answer" to the question of where energy will come from. We need a mix of different energy sources. And preferably none will get government subsidies, like coal and nuclear power.
Falcon
I'm curious, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty for nuclear power, and for what? Are you talking about waste disposal or accident insurance or what?
I wouldn't penalize nuclear power but I would stop giving them massive subsidies. Nuclear Power is "Hooked on Subsidies". Even in China, France, India, and Russia. "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon
If it was cost-effective, then it wouldn't require massive government subsidies.
Coal, on the other hand, _is_ proven and cost-effective, which is why there are so many coal-fired power stations.
And coal gets subsidies as well. Heck here's a video about "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies". Here are some of the subsidies coal gets: "TCS: Coal has long history of government subsidies. And here's Rep Edward Markey talking about subsidies different energy sources get.
Fact is is coal gets large subsidies as well. And they are dirty.
Falcon
But is it practical? It seems like people are perfectly fine dismissing "clean" coal (aka carbon sequestration) as a pipe dream, technology doesn't exist, etc., and then turning around and throwing scheme's like these out there as perfectly reasonable.
Last I read there's not one "clean coal" plant in production. But there are a number of both solar and wind farms in production. Do you recall the rolling blackouts in CA in 2000? What most people do not know is that there was an idle wind farm that could have been contributing more than 200 megawatts of electricity but wasn't.
Falcon
Keep in mind, there is plenty of scope to reduce demand as well (better insulation, fluro bulbs, etc).
Yea, I've said that before. With proper insulation a candle should be enough to heat a room, if a body isn't. And with good ventilation there shouldn't be much need for cooling. CFLs, which I have in all of my light fixtures but and that one I rarely use, only use 1/3 to 1/4 the energy incandescent lights do. However LEDs use only 10%. Unfortunately they're expensive and currently they're only good for spot lighting.
Falcon
Yes I did. I've used "NIMBY" a few tymes here, I wonder why I got the spelling wrong this tyme.
Falcon
Economically you've got it all wrong. Nuclear power wouldn't be used if not for massive subsidies but wind, which does get subsidies as well, does not get anywhere near as much. In a world without subsidies wind could survive but not nuclear power.
Far lower than building windmills and their acompanying grid infrastructure requirements to get the power from the wind centers to where it needs to go.
If anything was learned during and after the blackout in the Northeast it was that the electrical grid had to be upgraded and made smart. So the cost is there whether or not wind is used. According to the article "Rebuilding the Power Grid" in "Tech Review" "Grid-related power outages and problems with power quality reportedly cost the nation $80 billion to $188 billion per year."
Falcon
And of course plastics can be and are recycled in whole or in part
Originally plastics wasn't made from petroleum oil. Do you recall Cellophane? It got it's name from plant cellulose. Kodak used to make film from cellulose as well. Plastics made from plant cellulose came to an end when DuPont received a patent for nylon in 1935. However new research is going on in bioplastics.
Falcon
So, you're against buildings, cars, and cats then? Each of these kill more birds than wind turbines do.
Falcon
There may be enough wind in the world to supply our need 40 times over, but is the cost of tapping the energy source competitive with the cost of coal, gas, or nuclear power?
All of this get subsidies, as well as pass costs to others. Coal slurry spills happen all too frequently. Mountain top removal contaminates a lot of land. As does uranium mining. Without government subsidies nuclear power isn't even profitable. Though natural gas emits a lot less CO2 than coal when burned it releases a lot more methane, which is more than 20 tymes as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. Then it needs pipelines to deliver it.
We know that there are all sorts of natural energy sources around us, but its the financial cost that keeps us from recovering it.
More like it's politics. If financial costs were that important there would be no nuclear power. As I said before even coal gets subsidies. "Chevron agrees to lobby with Sierra Club to end coal subsidies". In "My Climate Bill 'Has Huge Subsidies For Clean Coal! Huge!' Rep Edward Markey goes over some of the subsidies different energy sources get.
It seems to me we'd have to rape the earth in a way most of us would consider fairly extreme to erect giant concrete towers on every square meter of ocean and land.
Not even close. In the US the Rock Mountains alone contain enough potential wind energy to power the 48 continuous states. I think that's what the Picken's Plan calls for. However the Southwest on up the Pacific Coast is also good. To the east from the Appalachians north to the Poconos and Catskill Mountains contains a lot as does offshore from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod. Unfortunately there are a lot of NAMBYs along the coast who don't want wind farms offshore. Kennedy is one of them fighting to stop wind farms in Cape Cod.
The ecolgical impact of billions of tonnes of raw materials being mined would be astronomical.
You have that with all sources of energy. If you don't want mining then you don't get energy.
Falcon
elegance, to them.
I whole heartedly agree!!!
Falcon
Personaly I think that we really ought to build more nuclear power plants. Yes there is waste but overall it is fairly clean and cheap and would do more for preserving the environment and supplying electricity than this would.
BS. Mining for nuclear fuel is probably the dirtiest mining there is. Reprocessing, sure fuel can be reprocessed but as the world leader in reprocessing France found it leaves behind a lot of toxic chemicals. Not only that but if not for massive government subsidies nuclear power would not be profitable, it may actually loose money. Here's an article from a Wall Street Journal blog: "It's the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power's Bogeyman. The Freemarket think tank CATO reprinted this Forbes article "Hooked on Subsidies. Notice this paragraph:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Falcon