It's true - I defended Palestinians and some guy wrote a letter to the editor in response calling me "a friend of the terrorists". I mean, really, in ths day and age, that's about the best compliment I could receive!

Lumping in Three Mile Island with Chernobyl is a bit unfair. There were NO injuries whatsoever associated with the TMI accident. Chernobyl killed 56 people according to the IAEA and WHO. As for nuclear waste, well, breeder reactors could elminiate the high-level elements by re-using them as fuel, the ultimate form of recycling. Low-level waste can safely be buried.

I am not clear how Mr. Wasserman planson running heavy industry on renewable enery - aluminum smelters and blast furnaces can hardly be run at the whims of sun and wind, and such activities would still be required in his Solartopia to build the windmills etc. I guess I will have to visit his website.

Wind farms dont give a damn about killing many thousands of birds and bats each year either. I guess its only a clean energy if you discount blood costs. There are ways they could reduce or prevent it--but they dont want to bother because of $$$.

They even tried to suggest that wind farm killings are ok because domestic cats kill many more. I dont recall cats being in the alternative energy business.

How about we ignore domestic violence in North America because we arent doing anything about domestic violence in Africa.
Two wrongs dont make a right, and getting wind farms to reduce their destructive imprint should be easier than trying to explain to cats why they should act upon instinct(due to human-caused pet breeding actions).

Yes, one for Solartopia!

http://www.dreamingearth.net

Pat Moore has turned out to be a grave disappointment. I knew him way-back-when. Way back in Vancouver, when he and Hunter invented Greenpeace. Wow, was I young and naive back then. His wife (long-since ex-wife), a close friend of mine, warned me about this odd streak in his character, but I didn't believe her. It's been a long wait for her to say "I told you so."

That's why you follow what you know instead of other people.

caliper-There were people who had radiation poisoning and died after TMI. Can't prove what killed them though. 2- Lets save fossel fuels for just such a purpose as smelting.

Harvey: I just want to say my hat's off to you. Visionaries are often mistrusted in their own times because they see further than most earthbound minds can understand or conceptualize. Thank you for envisioning what is possible, and for being a guardian of the great Mother, a THINKER who realizes that human existence need not wipe out every sustainable energy, thing of beauty, and living entity. I'd love to live in Solartopia!

I don't even want to hear about alternative energy sources until after we have action on energy CONSERVATION. We waste so much it's embarrassing.

daveg
here-hear.
including the energy we expend arguing and blaming and shaming, not to mention the big daddy of all wastefulness - "power" tripping.

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Nuclear Power

The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending:

1. Development of adequate national and global policies to curb energy over-use and unnecessary economic growth.
2. Resolution of the significant safety problems inherent in reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and possible diversion of nuclear materials capable of use in weapons manufacture.
3. Establishment of adequate regulatory machinery to guarantee adherence to the foregoing conditions. The above resolution does not apply to research reactors.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, December 12-13, 1974

Events at Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant reaffirm the validity of the Sierra Club policy on the lack of safety in nuclear plants and in the nuclear fuel cycle. These problems can lead to adverse health and environmental effects. The possibility of human failure dooms the nuclear fuel cycle to unacceptable risks. The Sierra Club continues to oppose construction of any new commercial nuclear fission power plants. Further, the Sierra Club supports the systematic reduction of society's dependence on nuclear fission as a source of electric power and recommends a phased closure and decommissioning of operating commercial nuclear fission electric power reactors.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, May 5-6. 1979

Consistent with its prior nuclear policy, the Sierra Club advocates the following measures to provide greater protection for public health and safety:

1. Federal legislation to require Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing of both military and nonmilitary radioactive waste management facilities, including research and development facilities.
2. Federal legislation to require Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation and control of all shipments of radioactive waste, whether of military or nonmilitary origin, and all commercial radioactive materials. The Sierra Club also supports state and local efforts to provide greater protection in the transportation of radioactive waste and commercial radioactive materials.
3. Presidential appointment of a special citizens' advisory group to advise the president, Congress, and the NRC on the implementation of reforms recommended by the Kemeny Commission and such additional reforms as may be recommended by other studies now underway of the events leading to the Three Mile Island accident.
4. The making of appointments to this advisory group, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and to staff positions in the NRC from a pool of individuals not committed by past experience to the nuclear industry. Such appointment should have a demonstrated commitment to public health and safety.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, February 2-3, 1980

Safety Margins for Water-Cooled Nuclear Plants

The Sierra Club is concerned that the safety margins in some water-cooled reactors operating, under construction, or planned, are not sufficient to avoid accidental release of radioactive material in all plausibly foreseeable circumstances. We believe that the maximum allowable power, fuel temperature, and heat transfer rates should be reduced to significantly less than the original design specification limits in order to increase the safety margin until adequate safety research has been completed.

Price-Anderson Act

As a means of internalizing the cost incident to the use of nuclear power, the Sierra Club favors the repeal of the limited liability provisions of the Price-Anderson Act.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, October 21-22, 1972

Breeder Reactors

The Sierra Club reaffirms its opposition to the funding of breeder reactor research and ancillary projects. This includes monitored retrievable storage for spent fuel except at reactor sites, reprocessing, the liquid metal converter, the water-cooled breeder, and the fusion/breeder programs.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, November 15, 1986

Fusion Reactors

The dangers posed by the probable releases of tritium used by fusion plants, the problems with decommissioning these plants, and their high costs lead the Sierra Club to believe that the development of fusion reactors to generate electricity should not be pursued at this time. We are not opposed to safe and proper research as long as it is not at the expense of more benign "soft energy path" technology.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, November 15, 1986

well said NMBill : Lets save fossel fuels for just such a purpose as smelting.

When the Solartopia-detractor's brain works like a knee-jerk it is no wonder that it misses a logical , negotiable , alternative solution like yours.

caliper, let's just look into aluminum. Only 40% of aluminum is recycled. The other 60% is processes from bauxite and dumped in landfills. Processing bauxite requires twenty times the energy as recycling. Bauxite processing uses electricity, and most electricity is produced at about 30% efficiency so 70% of the energy is wasted at the electric plant. The bauxite processing sheds much waste heat too.

Most people will agree that: 1.) Recycling should be increased until the point of diminishing returns, probably around 90%. 2.) Processing the remaining from bauxite should use a renewable electric source. 3.) Electric plant waste heat should be utilized to bring efficiency up to 90%, 4.) Excess consumption should be discouraged with taxes, and/or full costs reflected in retail prices.

Working with nature is not a problem. If the source is solar then refining is scheduled on sunny days and if sunny days aren't available then whoopee! Use a cache to keep the aluminum output flowing uninterrupted. The people can demand "sun made" aluminum certification, like organic. The people can also recycle aluminum in small locally-owned plants - only needs heat - try solar.

Defending nuclear energy is very unpopular on this website, however most of the complaints about nuclear power are about what could happen. Meanwhile, coal plants have killed millions, and global warming will probably kill MOST of us.
We currently bury uranium rods after they have been used only once, even though 90% of the energy remains. At any rate, uranium buried underground is nothing compared to carbon levels of 381 ppm.
Getting rid of nuclear energy is fine with me, if we get rid of coal plants first.
Daveg says it best. With conservation alone we would have a 80% solution; and conservation is easy. Just raise energy prices so that they reflect their TRUE cost. Energy use would turn on a dime.