Tell Obama: NO NUKES! Stanford Study says we can go 100% Renewables in 20-30 years

[Liberation Angel]

Obama is considering subsidies for the nuclear industry as part of a socalled "green" strategy to end reliance on fossil fuels.

The new energy bill will be up after the health care bill and the pressure on Obama is intense by the nuclear industry corporate lobby. They are deep in bed with the banks and wall street institutions that Obama has been too willing to lay down with to get "compromise" bills and solutions.

The fact is that we do not need to depend on coal, nuclear or petroleum in the long term IF we focus on and invest in conversion to a global renewable energy future.

It IS possible. It is MUCH safer and a no-brainer long term investment in infrastructure that will ELIMINATE the need for any reliance on petroleum, coal or nuclear and which can be implemented WITHIN 20-30 years UNLESS we WASTE our tax dollars on obsolete, dangerous and insane technologies which are NOT renewable and are definitely not safe or cost effective.

This study done at Stanford University and published in Scientific American magazine established that the entire planet could achieve 100% renewable energy in 20-30 years if we committed to it and abandoned the waste of funds on obsolete, deadly, and dangerous wasteful technologies like coal and nuclear and instead invested in a nuclear and coal-free future.

TELL Obama and your representatives that you SUPPORT a 100% Renewable Future

nuke free
coal free

clean

safe

doable

achievable

But only if we want it...




Read the PDF study conclusions linked at the site of the article.

100% renewable IS not a pipe dream!

It IS achievable!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030


The PDF of the study draft is here:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WindWaterSun1009.pdf

[timeforpeace]

1. That's what they were saying 20-30 years ago.

[Zoeisright]

21. You mean when Reagan stopped funding the solar power industry?

Let's get the facts straight here. My father-in-law started a solar company in 1980 that fell apart when that asshole Reagan was elected. If we had put as much money and effort into solar and wind as we have into nukes, we would be home-free.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. And we're going to enjoy a 20-30 year, uninterrupted reign of non-Reaganesque presidents?

Let's keep the facts straight - we're going to get another Reagan. Any plan that is THAT long term must recognize the likelihood of being overturned.

[grahamhgreen]

42. In other words - we could be there already!

[timeforpeace]

44. If it was possible, yes. It's not. Good goal, just not feasible.

[grahamhgreen]

53. Of course it is. March 8, 2007 - Danish Island Is Energy Self-Sufficient

SAMSO, March 8, 2007
Danish Island Is Energy Self-Sufficient
Samso Is An Ecological Fantasy Land That Is Carbon-Neutral

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/08/eveningnews/main2549273.shtml

[timeforpeace]

57. Danish Island has 330 million people, like the US?

[grahamhgreen]

59. That's an excuse, not a real reason. The same excuse for why we don't have a lot of progressive

ideas enacted already.

We can do it if we try.

[Liberation Angel]

2. Stanford Engineer explains it (video at link) - 100% Renewables by 2030!!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=powering-a-green-planet

[kristopher]

51. Abstract from Jacobson's earlier paper that compares energy options

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as
on water supply,
land use,
wildlife,
resource availability,
thermal pollution,
water chemical pollution,
nuclear proliferation, and
undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered.

The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85.

To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered.

The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[JVS]

3. "INCOMPLETE DRAFT FOR REVIEW – DO NOT CITE, QUOTE, COPY, OR DISTRIBUTE"

Well that's definitely something to bank on.

[Liberation Angel]

5. Scientific American linked it at their website (video too, dudes and dudettes)

so argue with them.

Really you can see the video made by the author of the study here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=powering-a-green-planet

go to the second page where there is a link for the vid in the upper right hand corner

[Liberation Angel]

6. My guess is that if they did not want it distributed, they woulda said so, BUT they didn't

and the link to the study is at the Scientific American website.

and has been for months.

I doubt that it would be there if it was not reliable --- the only reason for this language is really so that you wil purchase the actual article they published in reliance on their study.

NOT a problem in term of "banking on" the study.

But read the study and, if you can afford it, buy the magazine article if you have your knickers in a twist...

[JVS]

7. "My guess is that if they did not want it distributed, they woulda said so, BUT they didn't "

I guess you missed them saying so on the top of every FUCKING page!

[Liberation Angel]

9. Actions speak louder than assumptions: The article WAS published and linked at Scientific American

so read the article or watch the vid...

Their conclusions match what is in the draft report even if it is "only" a draft report the article links to.

the bottom line is the same:

These researchers concluded that the world COULD be totally reliant on 100% renewable energy sources by 2030.

These are scientists and engineers saying this. Not just me.

Nukes are dangerous and obsolete and sickeningly expensive in terms of long term costs and technology to store or manage the deadly radioactive nuclear waste.

Renewables are the future.

[kristopher]

22. It is a prepublication copy - offered to the public

The header is standard for an ACADEMIC article that is in the peer review stage of the publication process. The final version will be substantially the same, however it will be copyrighted by the publisher and will only be available via subscription.

Posting a draft doesn't violate the copyright but it gets the information into the area of public discussion where it otherwise wouldn't be seen. This doesn't hurt the publisher since academics need to use the final published version when citing the paper in their own research.

If you don't have university access to papers, it is always a good idea to check the author's website for a copy of their work.

[midnight]

4. I believe this....

[timeforpeace]

8. A bird in the hand versus two in the bush, eh? Hope springs eternal.

[NYC_SKP]

10. But if we can't get there that quickly, Nukes are better than Coal for the Atmosphere. n/t

[Liberation Angel]

11. Not if you are sucking in radiation from their emission stacks

and drinking contaminated radioactive water.

Man made Radiation is toxic in the atmosphere and worse than carbon BECAUSE it remains toxic for aeons and aeons...

[NYC_SKP]

15. Coal is toxic and voluminous. I'll live across the street from a nuke rather than a coal plant.

Any time.

Safety mishaps and deaths and illnesses linked to coal are of a galactic magnitude higher than for nuclear power plants.

[spoony]

20. What?

I know you go on these anti-nuclear benders once in awhile, but try to stay within the confines of sanity. Those aren't "emissions stacks" at nuclear plants. They're cooling towers. That's water.

[Liberation Angel]

31. Nuclear emissions/effluents come out in the stacks.

I have worked on NRC and congressional hearings on these issues as well as working in the industry with the envirnmental medical experts so your insult regarding my sanity is a little bogus, friend.

Anyway, if you doubt that the stacks emt radiation during normal operation here is one source related to that:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F23%2F19550%2F00903859.pdf%3Farnumber%3D903859&authDecision=-203

Since the industry does not usually bother to monitor at the stacks or even off site we almost never know how much radiation they are really releasing except by measuring it in the milk and baby teeth of those downwind.

But neither the NRC nor the industry even bothers to do this (because if they did the results would destroy the industry by proving that the emissions are killing children, babies in utero and giving us all cancer.

This is why the baby teeth studies done by the Radiation and Pubic Health project are so important: www.radiation.org

It PROVES what folks like me are saying and that we are quite sane and rational and scientific in our posiion that nukes energy kills and kills well.

[spoony]

50. Oh, well, if Christie Brinkley says so.

But I still want to know some facts and figures as to how cooling water that is never in contact with radiation somehow emits radiation from a cooling tower.

(on edit: I do apologise for the "sanity" comment in my previous post, I do not think you are anything but sincere, but I believe you are sincerely wrong.)

[golfguru]

62. 10,000 times more people have been killed by

coal mining, oil refinery's and natural gas production than were killed
by nuclear power plants. Statistics do not lie.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

27. After reading those 3 thoughts... I feel a bit more stupid.

emission stacks?
radioactive water being poured into drinking supply?
aeons and aeons?

:eyes:

[Liberation Angel]

33. The industry WANTS you (and all of us) to be stupid

man made radiation is emitted and released into our air and drinking water from operating (and even defunct) nuclear power plants. Legally (or at least by law even if that law is a violation of human rights and our constitutional rights making it also illegal)

Look up aeon if it confuses you.

Dictionaries are your friend.

It is a fucking long long long time that this shit wil be in our environment once it is released or stored.

Once you absorb strontium 90 it stays in your body through your entire life. It accumulates. And as it decays radioactively it mutates and damages the cells in the organs and tissues it has been absorbed into. We ingest it in food and water and breathe it in after it is released from the emissions stacks of the nuke plants or the water effluent pipes into our rivers and streams and oceans. It gets absorbed into our skin when we swim. It gets into the groundwater and our water supplies.

It will stay in your dead body and continue to be radioactive long after you are dead. It is in your bones.

Feel any smarter now?

[harkadog]

39. No just shows you to be dumber.

What you are saying is all the people who work for the federal government are in a conspiracy to hide radiation exposure from nuclear plants. Nuts.

[timeforpeace]

45. LOL!

[harkadog]

38. What are you talking about?

What radiation is anyone "sucking in"? What "contaminated water" is anyone drinking? You are just making shit up.

[zulchzulu]

13. The problem with nuclear power (besides waste) is that they cost too much to build

It takes about 8 years to build a nuclear power plant for a few billion dollars and then a few years to get the output online in the energy grid. As one who was for nuclear energy in the past after being against it, I'm back to being against it for the amount of time and extreme costs to build and not even putting in how the waste gets "deposited".

I think coal energy is better is we can get the carbon sequestration technology better, which is something that is tangible, feasible and even affordable.

Of course, cleantech energy has to be the main focus.

[NYC_SKP]

14. This is true, but many here would shut down existing plants in a heartbeat.

Climate change is about carbon, and nukes are carbon neutral in terms on energy sources. But not renewable.

One of the pathways to 100% green is reduction in per capita energy use.

California has led the country in this for many years and, in fact, per capita use has fallen in some years.

If we push wind, solar, offshore tidal and current, geothermal and biomass AND push for conservations and efficiency AND keep the nukes we have, we've got a much greater chance of being carbon neutral in our electrical generation.

If we drop nukes, the goal will take that much longer.

We have to take out Coal, then decrease Natural Gas...

The nuclear wedges are carbon neutral, no need to take out reliable carbon free production.

[kristopher]

23. That isn't how it works - nukes slow down the transition

One of the problems with nuclear power as an alternative is that it takes so long to build compared to wind and solar.

Another is the cost - for the price of a nuclear plant I can build a lot more wind and solar.

"New nuclear saves 2–20× less carbon per dollar, ~20–40× slower, than efficiency and micropower investments.
Buying new nuclear instead of efficiency results in more carbon release than if the same money had been spent buying a new coal-fired power plant." - Amory Lovins

The concept is opportunity cost.

[zulchzulu]

12. As one for this, I've learned that the kilowatt output would not be enough

I work with energy and cleantech clients and the overwhelming opinion is that even with hydro, solar, wind and bio... the kilowatt output is not enough for our energy needs. What's worse is that people who are for alternative energy as the only way have problems with transmission lines.

We need to invent more ways to get clean energy.

[NYC_SKP]

16. Well, that and storage.

Wind and solar, particularly, aren't online with the reliability that fossil fuel and nukes are by their very nature.

Technologies exist, with more under development, for storing excess wind and solar, pumped storage is an example (ie the Helms pumped storage facility in California).

Many don't realize, I think you would, that electric utilities have to be able to provide exactly the energy to meet demand, moment by moment.

In California, this is controlled at the Independent System Operator, near Folsom.

It's a great tour, very high security but very enlightening.

http://www.isorto.org/site/c.jhKQIZPBImE/b.2604601/k.AE29/CAISO.htm

and http://www.caiso.com

On the hottest days of the summer I like to check out the energy outlook, see if we're approaching brown out conditions:

Real Time Demand vs Resources Graph: http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

[kristopher]

25. Wind and solar are very reliable.

We know how much power will be produced, they just aren't dispatchable. We also don't need to focus on storage until the buildout for wind and solar is well underway. The current nuclear/coal system requires a huge amount of backup power in the form of severely underutilized natural gas plants. They are an effective (both financially and in CO2 reductions) a means of filling in the gaps that will develop as coal plants start to shut down.

A distributed grid built around wind and solar will be much more dependable than what we currently have.

[NYC_SKP]

30. No disagreement. "Dispatchable" nails it. n/t

[zulchzulu]

36. ...in some parts of the country...

I work at a company where we deal with cleantech and other energy clients and the energy throughput with wind and solar clearly are not as robust as other energy technologies.

A distributed grid built only on wind and solar would not be dependable at all. There are periods where there isn't sun as well as wind. What happens then?

I have solar panels on my home and there are days where there is no sun and the lights connected to these panels are dim. I drive by a wind farm occasionally where the turbines are dormant and not moving.

I absolutely agree on alternative energy as a supplement to other energy sources, but having wind and solar as the primary resources would not work in what we expect as reliable electricity.

[kristopher]

24. You are not correct.

I don't know where you learned what you claim, but it is wrong. We can EASILY meet our energy needs with existing renewable technologies.

[boppers]

17. It's possible to have solar flying cars in 20 years if we stop wasting money on existing systems!

Why do we keep spending money on cars, trains, bicycles, buses, and boats?

Oh... wait...


edit:typo

[AdHocSolver]

18. The fight between renewables versus nuclear/fossil fuels is between centralized versus distributed..

...power generation.

Coal and nuclear power generation plants require massive amounts of money to build and maintain. They are a centralized technology that places the purchasers and users of the power generated at the mercy of the giant corporations which control these facilities.

The power distribution grids are massive and interconnected in such a manner that if one fails, the entire system can be brought down over thousands of square miles. The blackouts of recent years are an example.

Renewable energy sources such as electric power generation by wind and solar means can be distributed around the country. These power generation systems can be managed by smaller corporate entities at a lower cost than required to manage a nuclear power plant.

There are serious economic and political reasons to favor renewable energy sources that use decentralized power generation systems in addition to the cost and environmental considerations.

[kristopher]

26. +1 ^

[dkf]

77. That is why individuals must pick renewable energy for their own independence or be forever

Dependent on corporations for their day to day needs.

It's a recipe for getting screwed.

[avaistheone1]

19. That would be unfreaking believable.

Wonderful news. I hope it becomes a reality.

[harun]

28. I'll take the reality of more nukes and electric cars over the hope of 100% renewables.

[NYC_SKP]

29. A very good thread from the DU Energy and Environment forum, where they know their shit:

Well, some of them (us). :P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x204115

:donut:

[Liberation Angel]

35. Cool! A Nuclear Industry Report says we need 45 more Nuclear Plants and they know their shit alright

This is an insult to our intelligence.

Of course the nuclear industry is trying to get us suckers to subsidize their mutating monster death technologies.

That is how wall street works and how fascism works,
.

Taxpayers finance their own death and destruction while the rich get fat off our deaths.

The thread you site has some gems, but mostly just the pro-industry hacks who bombard this board with lies about how wonderful dying of cancer is when you get bombarded with radioactive particulates emitted by comercial nuke stations. More efficient than Auschwitz, though a little slower. Of course eliminating babies in the womb is pretty efficient population control.

[slackmaster]

34. I'll just leave this here

[Liberation Angel]

37. You have my undying gratitude for that

boy do I feel vindicated

There are only a few of us who have the energy to stand up to the mob of pronukers here at DU and unfortunately many of the others here are severely ill informed about nukes and the cancer-causing and mutagenic man made radiation byproducts of nuclear power released by them daily at EVERY commercial reactor plant.

As a downwinder with children this is no kjoke to me.

But Breathed nails that.

We are more fun than buffalo.

And just as prone to extinction if the industry hacks and shiils win.

[harkadog]

41. If you really believe this shit why don't you move?

Is the only place you can live downwind of a nuclear power plant? I think not. If you believe your BS you are a child abuser who is exposing your children to radiation.

[Liberation Angel]

47. I did

so fuck off

[harkadog]

48. Your quote not mine

"As a downwinder with children this is no kjoke to me." Fuck off yourself. Fit your kids with tin foil? It wouldn't surprise me.

[Liberation Angel]

55. we lived very close and are survivors/therefore downwinders

my children have been diagnosed with radiation induced endocrine disorders

by an MD

I moved as soon as i could afford to, but it was difficult.

But the reality is that there is no place (at least in the US) that is not either downwind or downstream or in the food/water chain of radiation from nuke plants.

If I buy lettuce or oranges from northern Florida, there is Crystal River.

Produce from Homestead? Turkey Point.

NY Grapes or wine? Indian Point.

Vermont Cheddar? Vermont Yankee.

The fact is that i lived IN a nuclear community, what writer Michael Steinberg calls "a Sacrifice Community" (people are sacrificed to nuclear radiation on the altar of greed and savage capitalism)
It damaged my children)

It harmed all of us.

And we were diagnosed by an MD who concluded that we were sick from the exposure to radiation (primarily in the water where we swam on the coast but also because we lived near the harbor and partticulates get into the air by the action of the waves on the shore (smell the sea? it has radiation in it)

I apologize for my language. But with children hurt by the industry you defend, I have little tolerance for ignorance and insults.

I DID move (and your point is well taken). But nowhere is really safe. Some are just safer than others. The farther you can get from a nuke plant the safer you will be.

[Liberation Angel]

40. Thanks to Skinner et al: this thread #1 "On the Fence" Greatest page

I was originally one of those folks who rebelled against the unrec feature because it permitted people, orgnized proindustry types, to scuttle important threads with the unrec feature.

I still believe that the unrec feature keeps threads off the greatest page that should be there BUT at least this "On the Fence" feature lets me and others see how much effort there is to demean and derail the antinuke posters here at DU.

My gratitude goes out to those who rec and those who oppose nukes and to Skinner et al for at last making it possible for folks to see how that plays out here with the rec/unrec finction.

It is a powerful measure of the opposition.

[grahamhgreen]

43. Remember, there is only 60 years left of Uranium, we have to go renewable eventually, why not now?

[harkadog]

49. Scientific American says at least 460 years supply

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last Do you have a link which backs up your assertion?

[grahamhgreen]

52. No link but

it is from Thom Hartmann, I think in his book "The last Hours of ancient sunlight".

The AS article assumes "200 years at current rates of consumption."

The 60 year estimate is if we stopped using oil and just went to nuclear, I believe. OR, if we continue to increase our consumption of energy without going to efficiency.

Either way, uranium will run out, whereas solar, tidal, wind and water are virtually unlimited. Creating more efficient houses and vehicle and manufacturing processes is also key.

That, combined with the added on cost of nuclear of cleanup after disasters, and waste storage and nuclear weapons terrorist proliferation including dirty bombs makes nuclear completely nonviable, IMHO.

[harkadog]

54. The reason I said 460 years

is the SA article says there is about 230 years of supply at current rates of consumption. It then says further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

[golfguru]

63. Because green energy producers will go bankrupt

in a hurry if oil & coal producers keep prices low or drop them until
all competitors go belly up.

[Rosco T.]

46. Google "Thorium", there's the best Nuclear power option.

[insanity]

56. 100% is not achievable for a long time

It may be possible in theory, but there are a lot of hidden problems with it. Nuclear energy is a good answer for now.

[Liberation Angel]

58. Stanford scientists say by 2030 but NOT if we pursue nuclear

read the article

[insanity]

64. I did read the article

and I disagree with its conclusions. I'll pass it on to a couple environmental scientists and get their reactions, but my initial reading is that they are crutching on technologies that haven't been proven beyond microgeneration. Also, I'm not so sure we have the political will to accomplish this in 20 years. Nuclear is still the most reasonable and proven option.

[Liberation Angel]

66. You are right that it is ALL about political will (or political won't)

But the bottom line is that these are Stanford University engineers not some random DUers with starry eyes.

These are scientists.

There must be a mix of micro and macro generation strategies which inlcude everything from small scale community grids to massive infrastructure retrofitting.

But they have their numbers and analyses which say it is certainly feasible

But NOT if we waste money on nuclear, coal and petrochemical technologies which will not resolve the problems of harm to the environment and the risks and harm to people and other living things.

We need the backbone and wisdom to see this as a crisis situation globally which requires a global concerted effort.

Unfortunately, as corporate fascists and other corrupt financial powers control most political operations and hence energy policies and legislation, it is ALL about whether we have the political will to make this potential wonderful future a reality.

It will be hard work.

But if we fail the work will be intensely and abysmally more deadly, difficult and potentially doomed and ultimately impossible.

[insanity]

78. And I am too

Like I said, I'll pass this on to a few environmental scientists (including my father who is well respected in the field) and get their read on it. Having done government-level research on green energy before, I'm giving you my take. Don't assume that because they are scientists and Stanford educated they are right. I could point to a number of studies that tout the benefits of moving towards nuclear energy in the next 20 years.

Look, I think everyone wants to move off fossil fuels, but it is just not feasible in the next 20 to 30 years to be 100% without some fission power. Hell, fission power may lead to fusion power which would be exponentially better and represent a huge advancement in human understanding. What you are proposing would require too much investment, too much reliance on technologies that haven't had a chance to prove themselves, and too much of a paradigm shift in how we conceive of energy production.

[S_E_Fudd]

60. Thorium reactors may be the future here...

Low toxicity, short half life, ample supply....

Other countries have gotten the jump on it...it should be part of our solution too!

[golfguru]

61. Green energy's time will come for sure but not yet!

The problem is cost. The cheapest energy source is oil & coal. There is
300 years worth of coal in US alone and 300 years worth of oil world wide
by some estimates. Note that running out of oil predictions started 50 years ago
and there is no shortage today if you got the money.

Getting back to cost, the oil & coal producers can bankrupt green energy industry in a hurry
by dropping prices. That is why you are not seeing lot of money chasing wind turbines
and solar power plants. Major economies of the world are moving to nuclear power, including
France, China, Russia and India. There is no major economy moving to green energy...yet.
It is not a good investment, yet. When it is, money will flow into it.

[Liberation Angel]

67. ummmmm....no

not even close to reality

[golfguru]

68. what ever....eom

[Juche]

70. That isn't true for several reasons

Some renewables are more expensive than traditional like PV solar. But others are either the same or cheaper. Coal is about $0.07 per KWH

Wind power is cheaper at about $0.04. Geothermal & hydroelectric are also cheaper or as cheap as coal. Some forms of solar like concentrators are approaching cheapness.


There isn't 300 years of oil. There is barely another 5 years before peak oil hits.

Oil and coal producers cannot bankrupt the industries since they cannot cut demand dramatically. There is no coal OPEC. And they cannot drop prices dramatically anyway since they do not have major profit margins.

Money is chasing wind turbines. Even places like the US and China are investing heavily in wind since wind is now cheaper than coal.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/record-growth-for-wind-power/

Wind farms were built at a blistering pace last year, as wind power capacity grew by a record 50 percent in 2008, according to new figures from the American Wind Energy Association.

[golfguru]

71. The problem with wind and solar is not generating power

The real problem is transmission. The infrastructure required to transmit electrical power
thousands of miles away is prohibitively expensive. All the current transmission lines are privately owned.
It is not just the wires and towers, it is the land rights required to build transmission lines.

I guess you are not familiar with the practice of "dumping" goods to bankrupt competition.
Japan did that in a major way and now China is doing it. My own employer at one time went
bankrupt due to dumping by Japanese manufacturers.

And you are not correct in assuming profit margins are small in oil extraction. Just a dozen
years back oil was selling for less than 20 US dollars/barrel and oil companies were making
big profits. Now it is over $80/barrel and even you should know their costs have not quadrupled.

I have read reports saying it costs Saudi Arabia $4 to extract a barrel of crude and load it in a
tanker.

Believe me, if green energy is a profitable concept, big money will be breaking down doors to get in.
It's time will come, but not yet.

[Juche]

72. I'm aware of dumping goods

However I don't see how it could apply to the coal industry.

There are efforts to upgrade the electric grid. That is what the smart grid is supposed to do.

Demand for oil has increased while supply really has not. Demand is up 15 million barrels a day higher than it was a dozen years ago. So prices are going up.

[golfguru]

73. Yeah demand for oil is up but so is OPEC's imposing limits

on production. It is the same concept they use in production of diamonds.
They limit production to keep prices high. It is a very old game.

[Radical Activist]

75. that's why distributed solar

is smarter than large coal plants in the rural midwest that power the east. less energy is lost in transmission with solar. your comment falsely implies that most of our power isn't already being sent across thousands of miles. it is.

[Radical Activist]

74. Solar is cheaper than carbon capture and coal gasification.

Coal is only cheap because taxpayers heavily subsidize it at every level. Clean coal scams are more expensive than any renewable energy source.

The US DID reach its peak oil point as predicted. The industry knows they're running out. That's why they're going for the dirty, expensive oil like the Candada tar sands. It's an act of desperation.

China is already building more solar than the US and the industry is growing quickly in the US. Wind wattage is expanding rapidly. New coal plants are no longer getting built and old ones are shutting down.

It's amazing that you could fit so many false statements in one post. Stop getting your info from the fossil fuel industry.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Juche]

69. How much will this cost

I ask not because I think it is something we should bypass due to cost, but because I am concerned about the political viability of a meaningful renewable energy transformation unless the cost is something politicians would support. For the cost of the Iraq war (a trillion dollars) we could've built a TeraWatt (1,000 Gigawatts) of wind power capacity since wind is about $1 million per MW of capacity. Right now we have about 29 GigaWatts of capacity.

I know wind is now cheaper than coal and as a result doubles in capacity every 2-3 years. And global renewable energy investments are supposed to hit $200 billion in 2010 (up from $130B in 2009 and $155B in 2008)

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/010841.html

So is this going to be politically feasible?



Ugh. According to this, $100 trillion over 20 years.

http://www.worldusabilityday.org/en/100-renewables-2030-less-than-fossil-power-a-case-made-by-stacy-feldman

I don't know how we'd get that kind of funding. It is $5 trillion a year. RE investments are set to be $200 billion in 2010.

[Radical Activist]

76. There doesn't appear to be any reason to accuse Obama of embracing nukes

But hey, thanks for repeating the "Obama is betraying us" meme. Its really helpful.

[Liberation Angel]

79. Obama is considering nuke energy subsidies as part of the energy bill

I do not believe he will embrace nukes if the opposition is strong enough

which is why I posted this

I hope Obama will do the right thing

don't you

will you help?

[Radical Activist]

80. Obama is considering it according to who?

Do you have a link? Is there a quote from him? From his staff? Did he introduce a bill promoting nuclear?

Saying Obama is considering something offensive often turns out to be a cheap way to alarm people. I don't respond to disingenuous appeals that insult my intelligence.