Tuesday, February 27, 2007
An inconvenient truth about global warming
In light of Al Gore's multiple Oscar victory, I figured it would be important to link to Shlemazl's post about global warming. He states that the only logical solution that currently exists is to look to nuclear power. As a nuclear scientist and expert in the field, he understands what he is talking about. Shlemazl explained how nuclear power is the safest and most efficient form of energy out there. Yet, you will see organizations such as the NRDC oppose all forms of nuclear energy.
This is grossly irresponsible.
I find it amusing that people such as Al Gore and the NRDC cry about the problems of global warming, while refusing to consider the very obvious solution: nuclear energy! Is there a problem with using oil as the source of fuel: you bet your bippy! It means we are entangled with the worst regimes in the world! We are literally fuelling terror! Is there global warming? Well, without a doubt there's climate change! Are humans responsible? All science says that humans are responsible to at least some degree.
But what's Al Gore's solution? Ultimately, it's to cut back on consumption. How is this possible with a growing economy? And how is this effective, when India and China will be using fuel of their own? This thinking is simply the Professor Kurgman school of economics.
Yet, are Republicans much better? How many of THEM are advocating nuclear power? Hardly any! They seem to fit the 'stick the head in the sand and hope it goes away' school of thought.
There are three basic premises that we should all accept as undeniable FACTS: 1) We will eventually run out of oil; 2) We are currently getting oil from the worst regimes in the world, and literally fuelling terror; and 3) Nuclear energy would take us off the oil addiction (and tie to the worst regimes of the world)...
...Then it's CLEAR what we need to do. And yet somehow nuclear energy has become the third rail of American politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Having just heard the recently-appointed head of the US NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) talk, I am optimistic that the US has got it's finger out. Canada is moving too. You can't build lots of nuclear plants overnight, but the work has started.
BTW I support conservation (only achievable on a large scale through higher energy prices) and all the windpower that your network can stand as well as nuclear. Again, the US has made a reasonable progress lately by spending billions on conservation projects. OPEC has helped us a bit by ensuring higher oil prices.
--------
Have you found a flat?
Shlemazl,
This pleases me to hear! I agree with your positions on the environment 100%. My point about conservation is that while it is a great idea, ultimately is not enough, and hard to enforce.
As far as wind power, I back that as well...but yet there are activists against wind power because of it's harm to birds, and due to it being an eye sore!
We're a nation of babies! So sad!
As far as a flat, yes, I found one. I will be moving within a week!
Hope all is well,
Red Tulips
True - windpower has lots of environmental impacts: visual, noise, birds (particularly if off-shore), interferance in radiowaves...
It can all be addressed in specific projects. The main issue is technical: it depends on wind and your network can sustain only a relatively small proportion of unreliable power supply.
I think localised power generation using technology such as wind power might worth considering when used with national power grid systems that are based on nuclear energy etc.
Generate power at a local level and then people might have a better grasp of how much energy they use.
Some people in the UK are already generating their own power and selling the left over power to the national grid. But if that would work on a large scale is anybodys guess.
What is funny is that Al Gore is a huge energy consumer, while GW Bush has had a rainwater-collecting cistern to water his landscaping for YEARS. Who is Greener in real life?
Then we find out that cow farts put out more greenhouse gasses than all the cars in the world.
Time to line up and support genetically modified feed for cows, and stop driving the cost of cars and trucks up!!
The problem with windpower is that people are blocking them in court because they are "unsightly". Solar is still too expensive, but it would be great to see a huge tax break on them so we can all go throw a 1kw grid intertie system on the roof of our houses. Now that would really de-centralize the power grid, cut down on long distance transmission lines, and reduce the need for power plants.
Another thing is coal, we can burn it clean, but Clinton locked up the largest low sulfer coal bed in the world, Escalante, in Utah. If that was unlocked, it would really help.
So, you're all willing to put life at risk to get a growing economy??
If our farest ancestors had been using nuclear power, we'd still be guarding their nuclear waste. I'd think the world has way too much of that waste already. The more nuclear plants we build, the more chances we create for the "what if" scenario's to happen.
What if terrorists target those plants?
What if a meteor crashes into it?
What if the employees act as stupid as the ones in Tjernobil (or however that's written)?
What if heavy earthquakes or an erruption damage a plant? I'm not very familiar with it, but I'd sure hope there's no nuclear plant near Yellowstone!
Besides that I think we shouldn't consider increasing the amount of plants till we have a solution for the waste.
Btw, I read somewhere that recent studies showed that wind power doesn't kill birds... not sure where I read that tho, but clean energy seems, imo, the only option.
Post a Comment