How green is your candidate? Check it out here
Let’s talk Presidential politics for a minute. Someone asked me a few days ago who I’m leaning toward? I said I’m not sure. The New York Primary is only a couple of months away. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton aren’t exciting to me - I’m still looking for someone to support.
When Exile and I went to YKOS one of the more powerful seminars I attended was one on environmental policy. Environmental policies is probably going to swing my vote in the primary.
Oh - the GOP Candidates is also covered, so you can find information on Rudy Giuliani and company as well.
Here is the link from Grist.org
So - Be informed - very informed - you will likely be surprised.
Gotta love all the “no clear position” and “has not offered a specific target” Republican responses. Asleep at the switch. Interesting that Mrs. Clinton is dragging her feet on the timing of the fuel-economy standards. I wasn’t aware that she’s apparently owned by the car companies…
The chart was awesome and very surprising. It points out those who seem to be dragging their feet with Nuclear or Coal as interim steps as opposed to the current “interim” less consumption of oil.
Geez - more of the same sometimes -
Lets’ switch over our oil industry to another fossil fuel based industry (or nukes) to buy time so we can really get green.
As opposed to reducing consumption while growing renewables.
If Kucinich actually had a shot at winning.. that would be excellent.
I’m afraid that nuclear power may be a necessary evil in the race to save
the planethuman kind. I don’t think wind, solar, hydrogen and biofuels are going to be enough. France has improved their manufacturing of Nuclear power, when I’m not at work, I will look into this some more and find a link.Really. I’m surprised. I supposed we could put off all the waste issues that arise for a couple of half-lives of the nuclear waste.
Lower power consumption through smarter consumption and while we are at it toxins from industrial production (just a side note .
There is a lot we can do.
Germany was big on Nuclear power as well - they used to export all of their waste to the DDR. Until the DDR collapsed. Now they are dealing with a problem. I believe they phased out Nuclear power or are in the process of doing so.
http://rochesterturning.com/2007/10/24/i-speak-for-the-trees-for-the-trees-have-no-tongues/
Go to this post and then link to “Prophet of Climate Change”. Read the article from Rolling Stone. I will try to fink the France link.
Here is something:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html
not an ideal solution, but nothing is ever ideal. I am not a proponant of nuclear power, but I think I it needs to be considered carefully and rationally.
So, given the regulations, the disposal, the NIMBY concerns, the fact that Nuclear power is dependent on water supplies (rising water due to GW -warming not Bush), the movement of the waste, the difference in population between France and the US (French numbers need to be increased because there are a lot more families of 4 here than in France and all the rest I can’t think off of the top of my head. - Sure consider Nuclear power.
What is missing is the implied risk - a windmill falls and maybe it crushes some barn or something - damage is localized over a small area. A nuclear plant goes and it is localized over a much larger area for a much longer time.
Sure keep the current plants operating but instead of investing in all the baggage that is required to build a new one, invest that time, energy and resources into renewable or clean sources.
And I’m not taking about corn ethanol at 1.3 output for 1.0 input and the associated increase in food cost either.
“and while we are at it toxins from industrial production (just a side note .”
What does this mean?
The amount of toxins we use and produce as a result of industrial production.
Lead, mercury, etc all are used or result from industrial production. Why?
Same discussion is why to we need partially hydrongenated fats in our foods? Is is the taste? No it is so food can be formed as particular way.
I can debate if necessary but the overall point is that if we want to change we need to look at what we currently do differently. A holistic approach is required - in fact necessary.
/rant
You’re right about Germany:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/791597.stm
as you can see, work is slow today.
I pulled this out of the Rolling Stone article about James Lovelock:
A steady supply of electricity will also be vital. Five days after his visit to the Hadley Centre, Lovelock penned a fiery op-ed titled “Nuclear Power Is the Only Green Solution.” Lovelock argued that we should “use the small input from renewables sensibly” but that “we have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear — the one safe, available energy source — now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.”
Environmentalists howled in protest, but for anyone who knew Lovelock’s past, his embrace of nukes is not surprising. At the age of fourteen, reading about how the sun is powered by a nuclear reaction, he came to believe that nuclear energy is one of the fundamental forces in the universe. Why not harness it? As for the dangers — radioactive waste, vulnerability to terrorism, the possibility of a Chernobyl-like meltdown — Lovelock says it’s the lesser of two evils: “Even if they’re right about the dangers, and they are not, it is still nothing compared to climate change.”
(I wasn’t able to access Rolling Stone at work. It’s filtered out. Isn’t that a hoot?!)
if you would like to access his op-ed:
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm
Ok - what do we know
1. We currently have nuclear reactors on-line
2. We generate both power and waste with these Nuclear reactors
3. Building an new reactor is a matter of sifting through permits, regulation, and takes a long time. I don’t know when the last plant was build but it was a long time ago. I read somewhere that the process to build a new plant with all the approvals etc was like 14 years (that number is uncited)
How how about this -
We use the existing nuclear plants we have, and instead of building new ones we use the time and resources to build new ones and focus on renewable energy.
Do you really want to lift regulations and such on new Nuke plant builds?
You keep using France as a model for Nuclear power. How about Germany as a model for wind power? In fact I believe most wind turbines are made elsewhere.
But Westinghouse, GE would be upset because they build nuclear power plants. Frankly we have gotten along thus far with out new ones why do we need them?
I am not in favor of expanded use of Nuclear power. Use what we have now sure but all that will do is institutionalize mindless consumption and won’t solve the problem.
Tying this back to the consumption clip posted by BTP - we have 5% of the resources yet consumption 30% of the resources? Seems a little out of whack.
Oh, the risk/reward argument is moot with nuclear power as opposed to messing up the planet.
The author (and you since you use the authors words) wrongly assume an either or choice.
No - the choice is clear move towards renewables sooner rather than later because otherwise we won’t get there.
The question is this this, how many windmills (or other renewable sources) can you build in the amount of time it take to bring a new nuclear plant on line
It’s woodshed time:(from James Lovelock’s op-ed on Nuclear Power):
He does not say either/or. He acknowledges that we should continue to use our renewables. He is also pragmatic in his thinking and realizes that time is not on our side in that respect.
As far as using France for a model, I only quoted one article. And, by the way, where does Germany get all it’s power? From the article that I quoted r/t Germany and nuclear power, it would apear that they import power from neighboring countries. And what countries neighbor Germany……..?
Ouch-she’s on fire!
Um - no, unless the fire is a result of the melt down of your argument.
What I find distressing is you are simply reposing someone else’s words, arguments as your own. Letting them speak without interpretation.
So if we stop burning all fossil fuel immediately we are messed up anyway so might want to fiss istopes?
At issue is existing plants over new ones -
14 years (or so) for a new one as opposed to not. Then again we can do it faster by reducing the need to regulate these things. Sort if like rushing drugs to market. We have seen in the US what lack of regulation has wrought.
I don’t think we are disagreeing over the use of nuclear power. We have it already so use it. We are disagreeing over expansion if it. I define expansion as building new plants.
Regarding where countries get their energy from your Germany, France paragraph, so what? Where do they get the Uranium from? Who cares. At issue is, where does the waste go? Somewhere in France I’d imagine
The key is reduced consumption, coupled with clean energy.
Nuclear simply keeps consumption constant - or are all of a sudden people going to say” let’s stop consuming because Gee- all this energy isn’t causing greenhouse gases and I don’t like near Yucca Mountain, so who cares.”
try again
Anyone else out there want to jump in in the discussion?
Just to clarify - reduced consumption means people using less either by physically using less or using something that requires less energy to operate
I am all for conservation. I just don’t think that it’s probably enough even coupled with the use of renewables etc. I still don’t like the idea of nuclear power, but what I like is not at issue here. At issue is time-we don’t have it. Now if you can get everyone to agree, in this great nation of consumers and all stop driving cars to work etc, then, hey, you’ve fixed the problem.
Quite frankly, I don’t think either of us has a handle on what the time frame is, or even if there is a possibility of reversing things. If I can’t use an expert’s opinion in my argument, then, I got nothin. What is my opinion worth, when I’m not an environmental engineer, or nuclear physisist, or whatever these people are who understand the ramifications of global warming in a way that I never could?
“Regarding where countries get their energy from your Germany, France paragraph so what. Where do they get the Uranium from? Who cares. At issue is where does the waste go. Some where in France I’d imagine”
If Germany stops all their Nuclear power production and then buys nuclear power from France, then at issue is the fact that they are still using nuclear power, but it’s NIMBY.
So, yes, by all means conserve energy, turn out lights, don’t leave your computer on. turn the heat down to 62. ride your bike to the store. build a windmill,change your lightbulbs. grow your own food, buy local. take baths, not showers. Use cloth napkins, cloth diapers and handkercheifs. Buy in bulk to avoid excess packaging. bring your cloth bags to the store, but still buy plastic garbage bags. Buy a hybrid, buy a skooter. Do what you can. I’m done.
So time is the issue - then it is reduced consumption.
It takes time to build these plants which puts off the the necessary reduction in consumption. That is the the point. We have renewables “now”
Re experts - I’m sure there are experts who would argue that the technology exists for energy independence and all that as well.
Sure, do what you can - we can reduce and we can use things that require less energy.
[...] piece, last week, How Green is your candidate?, reminds us that our number 1 issue, in this country, for choosing a candidate for any office, has [...]