Kem Patrick:

This thread is getting old, but if you are still there, I don't have a problem with moving to clean energy right now. But conservation will be necessary. Big time. Especially if things happen (like methane) before the models predict.

I just think there is still too much inertia and misdirection, and not enough awareness. Things will have to get worse before we act.

I would start with a moritorium, effective immediately, on any new GHG emissions, with a possible exception of something like of replacing a coal fired plant with natural gas. That would constitute a reduction.

Do you think any democrat, even Edwards, would run on that? Have it as part of the party platform? Maybe everybody's savior, Kucinich, could introduce that legislation.

Then an ambitious schedule for reduction, including everything from subsidized rooftop solar to closing the malls and big box stores on Sundays, and maybe even a few strategically placed nuclear plants to replace the biggest coal fired plants.

John Edwards is the only one running who will do anything productive about the global warming issue. He's the only one who will give big business fits. He's the only one who will pull our troops out of Iraq within a year if he's elected. Is Edwards perfect, __he never has said he is, __ and who is? Oh almost forgot, Rush Limbahhhhhhh.

BBR-001. __ I don't believe you understnd the importance of beginning to convert to clean energy NOW, yesterday as Rebel farmer also stated. She is a very intelligent farmer BTW.

(Want to hear some good farmers daughters jokes? Lots of them were based upon fact)__ Never mind.

You are percieving the future, as if we had ample time to clean up the enviroment. A few scientists say we do have a hundred years or more, a few even say there is no problem at all. Over 2,500 top rated scientists, who have spent their entire adult lives studying the enviroment, and especially what has happend in the past 10 years, have a consensus. They say it is scarier than a pissed off mamba in the bedroom, or an abused preacher's wife loading a shotgun.

We are in serious trouble and not enough of our world's leaders believe it, or they wish to not believe it. That of course is very human nature. Humans do not want to hear bad tidings. None of us do. Sometimes it is very prudent to listen and take appropriate action. Kings used to kill the messenger. __ They still do actually. If you knew a madman was running towards your home with an AK-47 and was going to kill you and your family, you would act. __I hope you would.__ This methane gas bomb is a similar type thing. It hasn't gotten to our home yet, but it's coming.

Some of the most respected scientists give us from five to ten years before the Arctic methane "burps". Google Arctic methane gas and read the several articles on the first screen. The president of the Heinze group, says the latest report is the most frightening thing he has ever been briefed on. If they are correct, we're screwed, no matter what we do.

If the scientists who give us from 20 to 50 years are correct, we have a half assed chance if we act now. __ We should act now. Will we? __ Of course not. __ I'm just typing this because I'm bored and forgot to buy my Viagara.

We could go strictly nuclear now and shut down the coal fired plants, or go strictly clean energy and have that on line much faster, less costly, create many more jobs to boost the economy doing it and of course it would be much safer energy. We also must have the world's auto industries start producing affordable and reliable electric vehicles and give them tax breaks to do it.

We have to stop all of the damn idiotic wars and all of the nations leaders get their act together, join together, and fight the war on global warming, spend the war money on clean energy and knock off the stupid paranoid, jealous, macho and pride shit. Put tons of money into decent mass transit, stop destroying the vital rain forests, stop polluting the oceans etc, ___ a MASSIVE world wide effort.
Is that understoodable?

The French are nuclear crazy, if you will. I'm in the same boat they are. I live 30 miles due east of just about the biggest nuke on the planet in Limerick, PA. 2400 MW between two reactors.

At least I can feel a little less guilty about GHG when my daughter leaves all the lights turned on. (Just a little, someone else could have used that wasted power.)

I believe nuclear power is safe and the next generation will be even safer, but its too late for wholesale conversion of fossil to nuclear or anything else. The answer has to be severe conservation. It might be a good idea to install PV and a hot water system on your roof before rationing power from the grid kicks in. It is gradually approaching "parity with the grid" for cost.

The next 10 years? Some progress in auto fuel economy and renewables. Maybe start building some nukes. Just drops in the bucket. Then the s__t really hits the fan and we shut everything down.

Hey KEM, you already know what I think. Better get started YESTERDAY! If we are going to have any impact on global climate change, than we had better have some pretty effective processes in place WITHIN the nest FIVE years. That means we better have some stuff completed and on line. Not just on the drawing board.

But that is just my opinion. I'm just a dumb small farmer. What do I know?

We do not have 50 years, ___ 20 years. The global warming, the acidity of our oceans and the methane gas disaster is real. We do not have until 2016, or 2050. We have to act soon, and it WILL require a world wide effort. If America starts it in a massive way, other nations will join in.

We do not have the 20 years guys and gals. We just don't. So what do you honestly believe will happen in the next ten years?

Paul,

We obviously disagree on nuclear. To continue using coal requires sequestration approaching 100%. This is not a demonstrated technology and even if it can be made to work, the operating and energy inefficiencies may render it not feasible. I am 110% behind R&D for sequestration. I was very disappointed when Saskpower cancelled their 250MW plant with sequestration (development cost and schedule uncertainty I believe).

Hydrogen is not a primary fuel (unless you mean fusion). Hydrogen is a method of delivering energy, like electricity. Hydrogen by itself, is not present in our atmosphere except in trace quanitities.

There are two sources for hydrogen: First, you can strip it off natural gas with carbon dioxide as a byproduct. This is the common industrial way of obtaining it today. Second, you can obtain it from water by electrolysis like in high school chemistry lab. Electrolysis is used industrially when the hydrogen needs to be of a very high purity. The efficiency (and economics) of electrolysis improve at high temperature; that is why nuclear heat for hydrogen production is being considered as part of the Generation IV reactor work.

If you meant fusion when you mentioned hydrogen, this has a lot of promise for the future but is certainly not ready for prime time. The next big fusion reactor, ITER, is expecting to have first plasma in 2016. A commercial power generation prototype after that might be possible.

Regards,

Bill

Paul B. - I don't always agree with you, but I like your perspective on this one.

I don't believe in the whole liguid coal sequestering nonsense. But I hadn't thought about how coal fired plants could be cleaned up. I'm really interested to know where the technology is on this and what the drawbacks are.

Further, As most posters have stated, we need a multi-pronged approach to this. Because of the long time future sownsides to nuclear, I don't believe that this is where the emphasis should be. Yes, nuclear is probably part of the solution to the short term problem, but the long term challenges tell me that we shouldn't put too many eggs in that basket.

So where are we with hydrogen?

I still believe that renewables such as wind and solar is where we should put our energy. For two reasons - it is decentralized and can be implemented in a short time frame. To be honest, if I could afford to put up PV panels that would run a car, my water well, and my house, I'd be one happy camper. I could provide water to my neighbors, help them recharge whatever, and I could read at night. And I'd know that I was part of the solution, not the problem, to global climate change. What a deal!

The waste problem is huge in this country. We are basically enjoying the fruits of nuclear energy right now, but postponing the enormous negative effects onto the lives of our children and grandchildren. People need to know the facts. A short video is available at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omXT5slKHGs

Well, if I can't vote for Kucinich, I'd vote for Edwards.

Bill,

You didn't mention hydrogen -- the most common element in the universe, and the one which powers the sun itself.

If the choice were nuclear or coal, I'd pick coal -- hands down. Some of the more corporate-leaning global warming alarmists undoubtedly have a nuclear contractor in their back pocket. Coal plants are run far cleaner today than any other point in the past. It's at least theoretically possible to scrub a coal plant to be basically emissions-free, whereas the same cannot be said of running a nuclear plant with 0% radioactive waste and 0% chance of catastrophic failure.

I predict that anyone advocating nuclear today will be looked upon as those who advocated for slavery 150 years ago.

HI Bill, we had those other type of bees which don't bite with their butts. We ordered them from a farm in Oregon and they come with the small bee houses. They all died last year. We didn't even have flies or mosquitoes, ladybugs, butterflies or birds. We did have five hives when we lived in Michigan, forty years ago. It was fun and we had lots of honey to give away then.

I don't think many understand what I mean by the word MASSIVE when I use it here. I mean a MASSIVE war type effort, to end fossil fuel use and do it NOW, a five year plan. Just think of the jobs created also. I'm talking about over two million workers or more and a MASSIVE EFFORT. We must do it, that methane is not something to write off. Over time, we can phase out nuclear also.

KEM,

If we are going to maintain civilization in the US (as in keeping electricity 24/7 for the masses of the population) and seriously curtail fossil powered generation, we need all nonGHG sources of energy on the table.

I like geothermal power generation (not to be confused with geothermal heatpumps which I like also). This power source is technology constrained. We need to know how to do the dry hot rock technique in a sustainable manner. We need to know how to identify and characterize a geologically suitable area before making deep drilling decisions. This is expensive technology but lower than solar. It is baseload power which replaces coal moreso than natural gas. Because of the technology limitations, it cannot be as rapidly deployed as necessary.

I would not expect geothermal to be cost competitive with nuclear power for capital but it does have ofsetting advantages. It obviously would not require a continuing fuel supply. It's waste streams are more benign. It does not have the security implications of a nuclear plant or the perception of danger.

Wind and solar have a place. The link above to $1/watt for PV solar cell is interesting-we'll have to see it in the marketplace rather than in a press release, however. This could alter the prohibitive price of unsubsidized solar.

Wind is the fastest growing nonGHG power source in the US. It is currently constrained by manufacturing capacity. I would expect it to continue and its growth curve to climb. Without storage capacity or the touted DC distribution line which would add cost, wind is limited to about 6% or 7% of the generating capacity because of grid stabiity issues.

I don't believe that these three technologies, geothermal, solar and wind, are up to the monumental task of replacing the 70% of our electricity that is generated by fossil (50% coal, 18% gas, 2% oil) within 50 years or less. I believe nuclear needs to be heavily in the mix. Of the renewables listed, only geothermal is naturally suited for baseload power (full power 24/7) and it is technology constrained. Baseload power is nuclear power's natural market.

I agree with you that the nation needs to assault global warming at a full court press. The biggest problem in seriously addressing global warming will be the power and influence of the fossil fuel giants.

I join with bbr in hoping you are wrong on methane hydrate but I fear you are correct. Most of the methane hydrate is pretty well isolated under sea but that which is locked in permafrost in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia is truly a threat.

Regards,

Bill

OBTW, order a hive and honey bees for your garden this spring. I have a friend who is a bee keeper and he very much enjoys it. That way you also pass out honey along with your excess zuccini.

France is nuke crazy, not nuke happy. The Dutch are considered by many to be hardheaded. The French make them seem to be otherwise.

HI there BBR-001. It is not MY DU, __ it is allof our DU, since the decisions were made by idiots to scatter it all over the world and perhaps kill off the ocean's phytoplankton by doing so. And the methane gas release is not my idea either, I am not smart or educated enough to figure such science. And I also hope those scientist who state the methane in the Arctic may release in five to ten years, or twenty to fifty are wrong. I do not however believe they are wrong.

Indeed, you have your opinions and I have mine, we all have opinions. I do beleieve mine support the large majority here.

Let us presume there was no electricity on this planet and the technology was available to have it and there were thee options.__
One Nuclear.___ Two. Fossill fuel.___ Three. Clean and safe energy, Hydro-electric, solar/wind and geo thermal/tidal. Which of the three options would be by far the best to use?

It is not too late to convert to the clean and safe energy option. We are surely damned if we don't, __ NOT damned if we do. So bud, you can choose to blog here with the damning option, or think about being prudent and wise.

Gee KEM, what am I? Are you sure you're qualified, by your own criterion, to make that determination?

Its my humble conclusion that nuclear is the only thing on the shelf right now to replace coal for the vast quantities of energy used in industry and transportation. Secondly, the Generation IV reactors will some day reduce or even eliminate many of the problems, and burn up some of your DU at the same time.

Renewables are great and should be used wherever it makes sense. Solar thermal plants in the desert and rooftop or roadside photovoltaics will help reduce CO2 emissions, and they deserve a share of the investments we make.

We have a side by side comparison to see how things develop. France is nuke happy, has the lowest per capita GHG emission of any industrialized country, is continuing to expand the industry and looking to increase its electricity exports.

Germany has decided to shut down its nukes by 2022 and already has closed at least one. They have an ambitious schedule to increase the percentage renewables contribute, but they may have to build natural gas fired plants to replace some of the nuclear.

So will Germany meet its Kyoto targets? Will the frogs be glowing in the dark? The Germans have a lot of catching up to do with renewables. The Nanosolar project seems promising. The French have been big time nuclear for over 30 years.

Of course the US isn't doing much of anything on that scale. Just more fossil fired and a few renewable efforts in the works. Of course there is the genius of the neocon solution. Send manufacturing abroad, and destroy the middle class and the value of the dollar. Can't use oil, gas and electricity if you can't afford it. Recession/depression here we come.

Again, I hope you're wrong about arctic methane. Even if it oxidizes to CO2 before it reaches civilization, its going to give GW a life of its own.

I think you're being unduly harsh on BBR, Kem, I believe he/she is sincere and educable.

SJC __ You claim converting to clean energy is unreallistic, too expensive.

What is truly unrealistic, is spending $500,000 every minute 24/7, supporting an occupation in Iraq, funding the war in Afganastan to insure the poppy fields are in safe hands and maintainng a Air and Naval force prepared ot bomb Iran.

About half of that $ amount goes to Halliburton and their subs. ___ What is also unlrealistic, is continuing to pollute our atmosphere and oceans which is madness and of course you cannot see that, because you are like those blinded by the money which is made by having atomic power. ___ Yes indeed, we certainly can afford to have clean energy if we want to have it and we'd better initiate a Massive effort to do so.

BBR 001__ You do not have a clue of what you are talking about regarding solar power either, so you should seriously consider stop showing your incredible ignorance here, because most with any sense at all, can see you for what you are.

Solar might work great in sunny places with little heavy industry or mass transit, like southern California, even better Las Vegas. It is impressive what the Germans have done with solar, but wouldn't be surprised if quite a bit of nuclear powered electricity from France powers electric trains, the big German steel mills, Bayer, Siemens, VW and BMW... and keeps the lights on at night.

Our next administration needs to keep its pencils and supercomputers sharp, and lay out the best plan for everyone. Edwards will probably have an epiphany about the usefulness of nukes. He is the best man, regardless.

Don The Engineer 2:43 pm

"And I will go on the record here as saying I do not appreciate being forced to subsidize inefficient photo voltaic garbage. They consume too many resources and don't have the efficiency to justify their expense now, or even at $2 per peak watt!"

Your info appears to be about 20 years out of date, Don, which suggests your engineering degree is too. Check out the link that baruch posted at 12:13 pm. Or watch the Nova program "Saved by the Sun"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3406_solar.html

Even in cloudy Germany, solar is cost effective. It looks like it can be online 10 times faster than coal power and 15 times faster than nuclear, with fewer negative externalities and/or subsidies.

Edwards wants the nation to produce 65 billion gallons of biofuels each year by 2025.
http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html

He hasn't done his homework on the EROEI for biofuels and impact on food supplies from biofuel production.

That is typically American..."if we wanted to..." considering the hundreds of billions of dollars already invested in the energy industry, we are just suppose to scrap all that and start all over again investing more hundreds of billions of dollars. That is more than a bit unrealistic.

SJC ___ If we wanted to do it, we could have solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy and not use the hot water from a volcano with the accompanying caustic gases. Norway has priven Geo-thermal is an excellent source of free energy and it is not expensive to harnes and supply it. Hawaii is a unique state, and it was a lot more unique before the Bible thumpers, the English cattle barons and our military arrived and made the gals get rid of their grass skirts and cover their boobs.

We just never have had governent support and necessay and fair tax breaks to develop a 'massive' amount of clean energy like the nuclear power cartel has managed to have. There is big money in coal and uranium, not in wind and solar. And that is how it is. We have to force changes in that regard, or hang our jock straps up and admit the game is over. In spte of liking Kucinich, Obama, Marianne, Nspire and CoCo, Kathy and Rebel, etc, I'm going to support the man who may force those necessary changes. __ John Edwards.

Try to have a good next year everyone, Nite,__ Kem.

COCO is a sweetheart and has a great sense of humor and to top it off she is georgeous. She didn't mean any harm. She's very samrt too, for a foreigner.

Hmmmmmmmm I hope the edit works this time. For a girl I meant. __ Whew, almost messed up there.

KANE51

i was not complaining, i was observing

it was not a comment, it was a question

i do not hate anyone

happy new year 'citizen kane'

California being gamed by Enron in 2001 showed that you can conserve about 10% over the long haul. Coal provides 50% of our electricity with nuclear about 20%. Renewables can provide maybe 20% in the next 20 years. If you add it all up and want neither coal nor nuclear, you will be sitting in the dark.

DREAMER TOO -- Yes to all that turning, but first we need to:

Turn on Geo the Loonitary Decider,

and lock him away for life

Just a note on geo-thermal. I live about 10 miles from the only geo-thermal plant in Hawaii. When it first opened, they had a significant problem with caustic gasses from the stack. After quite a bit of money and time, they now have clean emissions - don't ask me what they did, I only know the neighbors were ready to close them down if they didn't fix it NOW.

Of interest to this discussion tho are recent improvements in efficiency. Originally, the plant used extremely hot water [they are tapping into the volcanic water table...] They never used steam, but used the really hot water to drive turbines to generate the electricity.

But, Pele is notoriously cruel and unstable. The water they were tapping cooled down, and they were faced with locating a new source of super-hot water and drilling much deeper, which was an extremely expensive proposition, and also got the neighbors ready for battle again.

Instead, they have increased the efficiency of the generating system to work with the cooler water [we are still not talking ground temperature, we are talking hot springs temps].

I'm writing this off the top of my memory bank. I am sure someone who is interested can Google the geothermal development on the B.I. of Hawaii. All I know is they continue to provide a significant portion of the power consumed here in Lower Puna and take a big load off Helco's grid.

FYI, Hawaii has one of if not the most diverse power generating systems in the US. Because both our coal and oil have to be imported and we have no natural gas, wind, solar, and even small local hydro, makes up a major portion of the energy resources.

We also have the highest gasoline and electric bills in the country.

I can only vote for Kuchinich, Gravel, Ron Paul, Nader and maybe a few others that speak out!

I'm a big fan of conservation.

Building more efficient systems just leads to more usage.

We need both.

--

Why not cool homes by circulating air below the building before it enters the room.

We need innovation not to be slain by a corporate government.

But those are your only options? Coal or nuclear.
Hmmmmmmmm.

The 100 plants as about what we have now. They provide a steady supply of power 24/7 and in some ways are preferable to coal plants. I like renewable energy, but we can not get all of our power from those sources.

To continue to build coal plants versus replacing old nuclear plants seems like trying to pick from two bad options. But this seems like a balance to me. Clean coal from IGCC plants would be good, but they cost more.

Clinton and Gore tried to get the coal plants to clean up, but Bush just ignored all that. I do not like nuclear power plants, but they may be something we will need in the future and having a balanced policy seems like a good way to go.

Hi all,

Who to vote for? Wrestling with the lot of 'em. Dennis is my first and I think best choice. But, I'll be called defeatist, I don't think he's got much of a chance with the political machinery that has been in place so long now.

As much as I would like to vote for a woman, I don't want to eventually have to vote for Clinton. She's changed or just become what she was destined to become.

So, who you gonna trust? This article on Edwards and others I've read paint a pretty picture, but I am suspicious of the "Hollywood factor." I have always thought he was a bit too sweet. I heard him talk the other night on tv and he sounded good. I must also remind myself he has "handlers."

Obama appeals to me, but I heard a quote repeated that he says troops should remain in the ME until 2013 (Clinton also said this). If anyone can confirm this with the evidence, I would appreciate it.

After the primary and convention lock in the Dem. candidate....gets sticky for me. I don't want it to be Clinton. It would be like taking bitter poison to have to vote for her.

We're all gonna be guessing and hoping for....the better new puppet?

The next is reprinted from another post...I want to make sure you read this and the following...

YEAR END REFLECTIONS

Glad 2007 is done.
Looking for a new start.
Dare to hope for better
-fair elections
-a non-puppet leader who is ethical, inclusive, and
positive results seeking and effective at same
-end to war and occupation of ME
-a united global effort and progress in environmental
healing and protection
-the development of alternative energies, no more foot
dragging

Should I have sent my wish list to Santa?
Should I repeat this mantra in my prayers every night?
Should I continue to write my government representatives
imploring them to focus their energies on these serious
issues?

We meet here at this forum, various personalities, commonly or extensively educated, sentient and observing persons, commenting on the troubles of the country and world. I have my favorite bloggers-Sioux rose, moonraven, KEM PATRICK, ezflyer, pacplayer, Paul Bramscher and others,…for their spot on observations, well written and usually susinct presentations of issues, factors, different perspectives and questions of intentions. Some personalities are passionate in their expressions and not afraid to show their anger. Others are cool mental types. Both are prone to dour predictions it seems, but maybe the passionate ones can fire up more action? Not sure…Myself, I have a foot in both worlds, so I have whiplash most of the time.

Where's it all going? We don't really know, do we? Fear comes from observing deterioration of conditions of safety and life preservation. We DO KNOW where we'd like it to go, without a doubt.

And so, compatriots, I toast you for your caring and high intelligence, for your engagement as world citizens-that ability to look out beyond your own little world, for using your own "spark", small by itself, to join with others' sparks in making a mighty flame to light the way.

Year end reflection caused me to revisit one of Kurt Vonnegut's last pieces written in 2006-a worthy read.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0205-29.htm

Happy New Year everyone!

Marianne

Let's turn off nuclear power and turn on wind, water, geothermal and solar (etc) power.

And people power; let's turn on the people!

Let's turn on the earth; let's turn on the hope; let's turn on the future!

Billy, clean energy is viable and affordable and we should not care if it might cost slighly more to have than nulear power. With no cost for fuel, I'm certiin it will eventually be less expensive than nuclear and of course the danger element of geo-thermal, wind, solar, tidal is almost nil.

If a serious nuclear power plant accident happens, and it will, it is just when we wonder about. That could eradicate a land area larger than Alaska for centuries to come and kill millions. There is no sensible argument there. We don't create deadly waste, whch must be stored for centuries using clean energy. Well, the French have managed to take care of nuclear waste storage, at least a good deal of it, by dumping it into our oceans and very possibly that is one of the the problems for the ocean's plankton die offs. They or the Russians, or any other country, are not going to publish how much they dump either.

Why nuclear? Selling uranium is very profitable, that's the reason. GREED and stupidity prevail,___ always.

No one has the right to put another life in danger of contracting cancer from radioisotopes that last forever, much less endanger countless future generations. Doctors go by "first do no harm". It seems engineers and businesspeople go by "profit at any cost in lives and public treasure".

PJD,

"the earth itself cannot be allowed to be hostage to a few small town councils."

There's more loaded material in that quote that I have the time or interest to respond to. Are you a shill for big energy? Getting paid I hope -- I'm not. If you're an above-board activist, I'm curious to know which groups you support -- and your real name so I can judge your committment for myself. Drop me a letter off-line if you wish. I've got nothing to hide politically myself -- all of my writings have my name attached to them.

I'd add one more thing about your anarcho-primitivism straw-manning. I'm a technologist by trade (you can Google my resume if you wish), and consider hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal to be cutting-edge areas of research. Oil is a century+ old, nuclear is also becoming a technology of the past.

But let's go one step further with anarcho-primitivism. If there are people who wish to live that way, and they cause no harm to others, what's your problem with it? Do you advocate cultural cleansing as well as energy fascism, abolishing local democracy (the only real democracy), and (since you refuse to repond on the topic) a unified national police-army?

Why not get rid of the "inferior" races as well? It's not "efficient", genetically, to have them. Once you make that final concession, you'll have finally advocated the ultimate of paradoxes: "progressive nazism."

Just to add another little observation. I know of a Dr. that tested oxygen placed within 1/10 mile of a nuclear reactor. The oxygen then would not 'ozonate.' You know, as in creating the 'ozone hole' so famously reported? Makes you wonder. It has never been looked into as far as I know.

Just FYI folks, nuclear power is BAAAD news. Aside from the problems with sealing off/disposal of 500,000 half-life 'waste' the NRC has a horrible record of inspection/maintenance, with water supply line cracks discovered by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and holes in walls the size of a football, etc. Assuming better maintenance, for nuclear to make up our energy needs these nuts think we can put 2 plants a week online for some 50 years or faster. RIDICULOUS. We're all headed for a reality check as biofuels is not feasible either, not in terms of volume that Bushco 'dictated' nor with the energy density of sources (see David Fridley, "Myths of Biofuel" site). We will all be forced to develop local sources of energy, use less, and look for future sources that will be better - none are currently viable. Hydrogen is not energy positive nor safe or feasible to implement on a mass scale for some time either. If our country doesn't get serious about facing facts we'll all be facing a rude awakening. It's dicey even as it stands now if we made an all-out effort. Kucinich is the only candidate the could even HOPE to start down the right path. Perhaps Edwards could try to 'catch up' after more S____ hits the fan. We shall see.

As much as I hate nuclear waste and the false economy of the nuclear power industry, you can not just say no. Nuclear power can be part of our policy. I favor no growth.

When you decommission a nuclear plant you can build another one. 100 nuclear plants of good size and more modern technology would provide the national base load, especially in the eastern part of the country.

Kem,

I think some of these guys are more likely to run for office high.

Bill

Paul,

I'm for democracy and justice at all levels. Worker control of small enterprises and large ones at the economic level, and democracy at all governmental levels. Note that some enterprises or public servises must inherntly be "big" to function. In many or most of these cases, nationalizaton is the way to assure the greatest democratic control.

But, I'm not sure what you are proposing - devolution to small republics? As someone involved in organized activism, I've never seem anyone propose that support of devolution be some kind of basic principle.

And, lets not forget that localism has an ugly side. In the 1960's, in Little Rock, Montgomery and Memphis, was it the locals who responded to the the black civil rights activists demands? Or, was it big government - which with laws and troops, forced local communities to dismantle Jim Crow?

This sort of thing continues - in my city, it the local small businesspeople that are impeding progress for the workers, the poor, public services, and environmental sanity.

And having seen the manner in which MINBYism is impeding development of wind energy and more efficient electric distribution, local control can be ugly in lots of other ways too. The welfare of millions - and the earth itself cannot be allowed to be hostage to a few small town councils.

Almost every progressive realist in America wants Dennis and his policies. But the media is organized in force to prevent it and so far there is not a powerful enough alternative mainstream voice to make it realistic. I donated money to Dennis and find the situation truly immoral. But at least Edwards is pointed at the right enemy and might be able to tap into populist resentment over the abuses of Corporatocracy.

The nuclear issue must be addressed; the continued pursuit of nuclear power and weapons makes likely the worst possible and most longlasting and widespread ecological and human disaster imaginable. Betting the future of the planet on a technology for cleanup that doesnot and never will exist is insane. The toxicity and half life of fuel rods and plutonium will not change and the forces at work on an unstable geologically active planet will not change. The French don't have any magic answer and used to dump nuclear waste in the ocean.

Realistically the best hope for America lies in broadbased reform movement in grassroots democratic politics. The internet is good for information but not as a tool of effective change.

...so if all of America's nuke power plants were to built today on French standards it would cost over 100 billion and about 7-8 years!
That's enough $ and time for every home in America to have a solar PV unit on their home and office. The energy offset would kill the need for any new fossil or nuke fuel power plants! Add energy efficiency and energy conservation to the mix and there would be far more power available than we have now.

What seems to be missing from the pro-nuke argument is the massive underwriting that utilities needs from the government. It wasn't reasonable environmental concerns and massive public protest that kill nuclear power in America but utilities/banks not wanting to take the financial risk alone!

PJD: On which issues do you fall within the mainstream progressive movement?

If you don't think democracy works at local levels, at which level do you think it should kick in? County? State? Federal? One world government only?

I posed the question once earlier with regard to law enforcement. What do you think of abolishing the local police (and Posse Comitatus Act) and just going with a national police-army? Think of the efficiencies. You'd get rid of those pesky local citizens councils, could centralize/pool law enforcement resources, etc. Another good "progressive" idea there?

It's not useful to straw-man localism as anarcho-primitivism, for the simple reason we cannot straw-man an advocacy of energy fascism as technocracy. There have been many primitive cultures which monopolized resources (Pharaonic Egypt and the Nile comes to mind off the top of my head). Sure, it brings certain "efficiencies".

As for the problem of moving energy from A to B, you'll have that with most sorts of energy, especially nuclear.

There is a point of diminishing returns on the expectation that people can live anywhere on the planet without costs. People have populated desert regions and we need to ship in fresh water hundreds of miles. There's a point at which living sensibly in relation to bioregionalism ought to kick in.

Out of curiosity, on which issues do you embrace a mainstream progressive stance?

I have posted this opinion previously on other threads and will post it again.

We humans have a war now that ends all others. It is the war of Global Warming. The most onimous feature of that is the coming release of the billions of tons of Methane gas in the Arctic permafrost and in the oceans. The release of that gas, is the most serios problem due to the time factor, we are running out of time according to thousands of qualified scientists.

We have a war, this is the only water planet known to exist in the entire vast universe, if there are others like Earth, we haven't located any. We are destroying our atmosphere and our oceans and we must stop and do so now. Earth is a biosphere and we are killing it with man made pollution, primarily from burning coal and using internal combustion oil burning engines.

Most of the coal burnling is for producing electrilcal power. We have to stop it. How? Either nuclear power, or safe and clean alternatives, such as solar, wind, geo-thermal, dams and tidal. The arguments abound. There is no argumet that nuclear is dangerous, expensive and leaves us with deadly waste that we must safely store for thousands of years or ___ forever! It is proven we cannot safely store it, for even 55 years.

We have a choice and we don't have a lot of time. We humans must initiate a MASSIVE, world wide effort to produce clean energy. If we do so, we could have every coal fired plant in North America shut down in from five to ten years. Then we could work on shutting down all of the nuclear plants and 'attempt' to safely store the man made nuclear waste already produced.

I used this example for what we humans can accomplish with a MASSIVE effort previously, and some wise sage here wrote, that I sure was a miserable, idiotic sad sack for doing so. I used WW-2 as an example. WW-2 is a moot issue, the real war we now have is not moot. The examples of what was accomplished by humanity during WW-2 is only that,___ examples.

IN 1942 we bult the largest oil pipeline ever imagined and had it in service in about a years time. The Big Inch, which snaked it's way from Texas to Newark, New Jersey. At the same time, the Alcon Highway in Alaska was bult and open for busines. We sadly built the Manhatten Project and began producing many thousands of military ships, aircraft, vehicles and cannons. Isn't it a shame, we can have a massive effort to wage a war, but we don't do the same for a enviromental war that we must fight and win if our children and theirs have any decent life, or perhaps any life at all.

I believe John Edwards is our best choice to initiate that most necessary war. That's my political opiniion. The opinion of the release of methane gas, is the opinion of highly qalified scientists.

Bush & Co undoubtedly would love to drop a bunker-busting bomb on Greenpeace's corporate headquarters and blame it on Al-Qaida -- kill several birds with one stone:

* Get rid of Greenpeace and those pesky environmentlers. Get rid of the First Amendment too -- an added bonus.
* Build nuclear plants in backyards everywhere. They're clean! You can cleanly recycle spent uranium -- safe enough to sprinkle on your breakfast cereal in the morning.
* Let the former chief of FEMA manage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There's too much paperwork. We need to streamline the process. We need outsiders, non-establishment people in charge. Maybe Bolton.
* No reason to explore hydrogen, solar, wind, geothermal, etc. then either.

Rove, are you listening? Oh Turd Blossom, wherefore art thou? This sound like a good PNAC strategy?

Some of you guys should run for high office.

Mr. bramscher,

I think you misunderstood me. I fully support renewables, but arguing for renewables from a persepective of localism doesn't work for technical reasons. What do communities with a cloudy, low wind climate, like where I live, do?

And no, I don't buy your notion of localism - which sounds almost anarcho-primitivist, as a philosophy.

How is a nuclear power plant any more inherently "autocratic" than any other kind of manufacturing operation? And how will wind energy, which will only work as part of an intregrated intercontinental network, be "local"? And, if it were local, isn't it going to lead to strife and conflict over the limited resource?

we are a nation of 300 million, together, in world of 5-6 billion, together, we work towards democracy with that in mind - not by regressing to some kind of primitive notion of city-states or something.

The French can build a nuke in 6 years for $1bn. The break even point vs oil is about $40/bbl. Its now at $100! They are exporting "low cost" electricity, and looking forward to the income from their new reactors.

Even so, its still too late. We'll be saying coulda, woulda, shoulda in the food ration line on a nice 105 deg / 90% RH day about 10 years from now.

Mark Abram,

Nuclear energy isn't really a useful wedge, because probably 90% of the "left" is opposed to it, for the reasons I outlined earlier and others:

* Autocratic form of energy, cannot be locally administered, owned or self-determined.
* Connection to the m.i.c. and weapons industries.
* The fact it must be subsidized.
* Sabotage target, and accidents in general present possibility of massive catastrophe.
* Ethics of offloading the mess to future generations.
* Expense: TCO must include real estate, security, monitoring, containment, etc. for centuries.

Nuclear is totally incompatible with most progressive ideologies for these reasons and more. If the m.i.c. wants a wedge, this isn't a good one. A wedge should cut closer to the middle.

The highway divider idea for solar panels is great ...also windpower blades could be put interspersed or mingle with them...When the sun isn't shining the wind can be blowing... also Solar panels on Shpping center roofs and other huge flat Roofs and there is a lot of land by Highways and Railrods that is not being used for the people. These are places good for Geothermal too.

Let the other countries Deal with the problems of Nuclear waste and costs... USA can't afford it! 20 years to build a nuke plant anyway...

Most scientists say the ice caps could be gone by then ...this is pretty simple... Edwards and Dennis would make a good team.

"There's been a real bias against nuclear energy in the United States, going all the way back to Three Mile Island in 1979, but I think most of it is unfounded," said Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor.

This from a guy who has a real bias against Darwinian evolution. I think I'd go elsewhere for a second opinion.

Check out John Edward's 29,000 square foot compound in NC:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/02/buzzing_about_edwardss_new_com.html

The guy is a FRAUD. We will need a nuke plant in every county if we all want to live like Edwards. (Remember, Edwards also supports economic equality.) Edwards is against nukes because it sounds good to be against nukes. It is his way of pandering to the environmentalist groups.

Or were the Greenpeace flags along the canal? I forget.

ezeflyer may have two stories mixed. The Rainbow Warrior was protesting French plans to test an H-bomb, not dump waste when it was desroyed by French agents.

The waste story is goofy. Japan shipped waste to France for reprocessing. On arrival, politics had changed, and the French would not accept it. So the ship was returned to Japan where it also was not accepted. At one point it went through the Panama Canal, apparently flying some stolen Greenpeace flags. I hope is still isn't sailing around out there some place.

It seems to me that if a fraction of the money needed to build new nuclear power plants (and to develop "safe" disposal) were spent on solar technology, it would solve much of our energy needs (not so much transportation, unless solar batteries could be improved and the electric car could become a reality). Look at how Germany has put solar panels along its highways. With all the highways in the US, we wouldn't need to build coal and nuclear or even wind power stations---just put solar panels on highway dividers and tap them into existing generating stations. Of course, what's stopping that from happening are the oil, coal and auto lobbies.

What we didn't know about John Edwards:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31edwards.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Paul B:

If you want to look at small community use of nuclear power, follow the saga of Galena Alaska. This little town uses a diesel generator for electric power and the fuel must be barged up the Yukon river while it is open. Electricity (and other fuels) are extremely expensive and the town council was looking for alternatives.

Toshiba is developing a small nuclear reactor they are calling a nuclear battery. They have been in contact with the town council of Galena and I believe they have offered to install a prototype 4S nuclear battery for Galena for free (presumably for the marketing potential). The reactor is intended to be a very simple hands off self regulating operation and is intended to run 20 years without refueling.

The 4S nuclear reactor will not be competative with large water cooled reactors where the large reactor is suitable. It is aimed at the small isolated community that is not grid connected.

The reactor design has not yet been submitted to the NRC for approval. This will be an interesting story to follow.

Bill

A couple of quotes from the link that baruch cited above at 12:13 pm should be enough to end all discussion of nuclear power (assuming, that is, one can believe what Nanosolar says)

"Our first solar panels will be used in a solar power station in Germany," said Erik Oldekop, Nanosolar's manager in Switzerland. "We aim to produce the panels for 99 cents [50p] a watt, which is comparable to the price of electricity generated from coal. . .
"We are aiming to make solar power stations up to 10MW in size. They can be up and running in six to nine months compared to 10 years or more for coal-powered stations and 15 years for nuclear plants. Solar can be deployed very quickly," said Oldekop.

Braithwa and Paulk,

When the Thresher and the Scorpion sank, I assume the water circulating loop which connects the pressure vessel to the engineering equipment was breeched. I have no idea where the weak point would be but I assume there was one.

That gets salt water inside the reactor vessel.

In normal operations, the fuel inside the reactor vessel is not in direct contact with the water. There is a corrosion barrier between the two. If the fuel itself is not mechanically damaged by the sinking, the corrosion barrier should be intact.

In naval reactors, like commercial power reactors, zirconium or zirconium alloys are used as the corrosion barrier. Zirconium based metals have been tested extensively for high temperature nuclear reactor service. They have also been used in the chemical processing industry when stainless steel was not good enough. By now the reactors would be giving off very little heat. Room temperature or cooler ocean salt water is actually a pretty mild service condition for these materials.

Bill

"I urge all of you out there who profess support for Dennis to get on the blower with people in New Hampshire for him!"

Having listened to the speeches of all candidates for the past year and will be listening to them for another ten months , any intelligent and concerned American who must be urged to support Dennis Kucinich whatever his chance of winning deserves the approaching dictatorship differing only in degrees of ruthlessness in all areas of concern : healthcare , occupation , wire-tapping and constitution-gutting

Very good observations PAUL K.

When do the Dem candidates for President have to disclose who made donations over $100 to their campaign?

@billy_y4: - "If the reactor fuel on the Thresher and the Scorpion was not damaged and start leaking in the accident or the sinking, it should be incapsulated indefinitely. It should last for at least several hundred years by which time the leakage should be undetectable"

When the Thresher and the Scorpion sank to enormous depths, the ocean broke in. There's a hole in each sub. Inside, there are lots and lots of pipes leading to the reactor. Pipes would corrode, but more important, pipes infused with radiation and with all sorts of radioactive isotopes corrode more quickly than normal pipes. Finally, strange things sometimes happen when defense contractors cheap out.

If the Thresher or the Scorpion was already leaking radiation, how would you know? Why would the U.S. Navy want to tell you? If thousands of barrels of dumped radioactive waste and chemical waste was leaking, how would you know?

A very good post EZEFLYER, the French are insane to do that.

BTW, Google nuclear accidents. Very eye opening, there have been several nuclear subs sunk, don't forget the Russians. And the published informatin that they aren't leaking nuclear waste in the oceans, comes from ___ guess who?

We either begin a massive world wide effort to have clean and safe energy, or we won't have very long to wait for the methane gas to escaspe into the atmosphere. When it does and it will, only the the time when it occurs is argumenative, then these types of discussions will be moot.

That is not my personal opinion, over 2,500, highly qualified scientists have stated that. Some say from five to ten years only before the Arctic methane gas "Burps" into the atmosphere. Google Arctic methane gas and read every article on the first screen. It is most serious.

Sorry COCO, you have misjudged him. That's him 100% in that photo. John Edwards cares about everyone and the big business people are scared of him. Edwards is not afraid to admit a mistake, like most politicians are. He isn't perfect, __Who is? Considering all other options, he is the best on the issues and also very importantly, electable. I would like to see him with Kucinich as the team against the Repugs.

I believe either Obama or Hillary would have a hard time against Huckabee, and if the Huckster-to-bee ends up as our president, we may wish Bush was still in office. That's how bad Huckabee is.

I have not read all of the posts here, but want to offer a website I was just provided today as it addresses the greater issues of runaway consumerism, especially in the U.S., and the whole cycle that feeds the need for more energy, regardless of its source. Please take 20 minutes and watch/listen to The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard http://www.storyofstuff.com/. It is an education and is worth you time.

peace,
st john

So, I take it someone wants to use nuclear power as a wedge issue to divide the Left. Great idea.

If you take global warming seriously, you have to be open to nuclear power as part of the solution, because for baseload electricity generation (all the time, day and night, wind or no wind) the only viable alternative to coal, right now, is nuclear. India and China and any other growth markets are going to need the nuclear option. The US maybe does not, but if we want to shut down coal plants wholesale we are again going to need nukes.

But for a generation of progressives (my generation and older), opposition to nuclear power became an article of faith. That makes a basically technical issue of safety into a political-religious issue. We should be uniting on basic values, not dividing on issues of identity and commitment to fundamentalist positions which may be out of date.

France was dumping nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean. Greenpeace interfered and French commandos sank the Rainbow Warrior in a New Zealand harbor, killing one crewman. These drums of nuclear waste are corroding and introducing radioisotopes into the ocean food chain, bioconcentrating for thousands of years, producing cancers, leukemias and neoplastic diseases forever.

I would consider voting for Edwards if he agrees to end the WOD and legalize marijuana.

PJD: Rather than challenging my "locally based economics" viewpoint (which, by the way, I take from the Green TKV, bioregionalism, the early progressive anarchists, and my own observations) -- rather than challenging this -- why didn't you challenge the notion that nuclear power must be an autocratic form of energy?

Why not manage nuclear by local communities? Democratically elected citizens councils and energy co-ops, etc? You seem to tacitly acknowledge that nuclear must remain a national/autocratic/m.i.c. form of energy, and are totally okay with this -- instead taking issue with democratic (and therefore local) due process. Curious.

@billy_y4: - "If the reactor fuel on the Thresher and the Scorpion was not damaged and start leaking in the accident or the sinking, it should be incapsulated indefinitely. It should last for at least several hundred years by which time the leakage should be undetectable"

Several Hundred Years? How? Is it not made of steel? Steel, under the ocean would have become iron oxide like the titanic, without continuous maintenance, wouldnt it? No need to accuse me of ignorance - I confess in advance. Explain more, or give a link.

Edwards seems to have the best understanding of global warming, and the most clear policy, but leasdership on this issue means he is going to tell you and me and everyone else we have to cut back, and how much.

I'm pro nuclear, but its really too late for that. We would need a crash program of hundreds of reactors to replace coal and oil, and produce hydrogen to replace gasoline for any chance of having a world that remotely resembles what we have now.

Its too late for nuclear to save the day, and it isn't going anywhere, anyway. Maybe our descendants, if humanity survives, will use nuclear for clean, free unlimited energy as they restore CO2 to preindustrial levels and turn the earth into the garden it should be.

So when we have the mother of all GW years in 2012 or so, complete with 390 ppm CO2, a solar maximum and an El Nino, people are starving, more glaciers are meling, and storms and fires are ravaging the world, will Edwards be the man?

The man who tells us to severely ration all fossil fuels and electricity, halt air travel, close down the steel and aluminum industries, and give us ration coupons for food so that people abroad don't starve. And tells us we have to live this way until CO2 drops to maybe 350 ppm and then only gradually build a new sustainable economy. Will we listen? Will the special inerests run him over?

Death,

Geothermal power generation is frequently spoken of at the same time as geothermal heat pumps. I believe this happens because the government research agency for these two technologies pools them in their literature. This is most unfortunate and leads to confusion.

Geothermal power generation consists of tapping high temperature underground locations. This generally involves deep drilling into rock at 300, 400 or 500F and withdrawing high temperature, high pressure steam to drive a turbine. This is a fairly expensive technology to develop (most geothermal plants will probably cost more than a similarly sized nuclear plant). Geothermal is a sustainable baseload power source. It is only useable in very specific locations of suitable geography.

Geothermal heat pumps are not a source of power. They are a way of improving the efficiency of a heat pump. A geothermal heat pump has a loop buried in the ground deep enough to stay at a pretty even and moderate temperature year round. A regular air coupled heat pump has to try and pull heat out of -10F air in the dead of winter whereas a ground coupled heat pump easily pull heat out of 50F earth. Likewise in the summer a regular air coupled heat pump is trying to cool its outside cool with 100F air whereas a ground coupled heat pump is chilling its outer coil with 50F earth. Geothermal heat pumps are suitable in all fifty states.

Bill

Braithwa,

If the reactor fuel on the Thresher and the Scorpion was not damaged and start leaking in the accident or the sinking, it should be incapsulated indefinitely. It should last for at least several hundred years by which time the leakage should be undetectable.

I would agree that dumping a used reactor into the ocean is not a desireable method of disposal. A disposal method should, as you suggest, address millenia, not decades or centuries.

Regards,

Bill

NOVASCOTIAN--Thanks for the link. All supporters of Kucinich should take advantage of this opportunity to do something concrete for his candidacy in New Hampshire.

sun good-nuke bad

Billy_y4

Nanosolar just went into production, delivering solar electricity at about $2 per installed watt. Assume ramping up their production so that anyone can install this product on their homes within 15 years. 10,000 square miles of solar production in the Southwest using available technology can supply all our power needs. Take some of the money being wasted in Iraq and start building this.

Meanwhile, many other energy sources are becoming feasible, most of which can be produced locally (geothermal is one of the simplest). The list of these is long, and easily found. Bottom line, to me, is that we can be energy independent in 25 years, or even less. Factor into this equation the fact that the energy-from-oil market will feel the forces of competition, bringing an end to their hold on us.

Any of our presidential candidates who don't realize this, and/or depend on the corruption that exists today to get into or stay in power must not be considered.

I'm not a die-hard fan of Edwards, he is one of only a few candidates who seem to get it. But I'd like to think he may do other things if elected, like shipping bush and cheney and their minions off to the Hague immediately upon gaining power. If I thought Hillary will do any of these things my primary vote would go to her.

I will vote for no major repuglican candidate, for the simple reason that the only thing they believe in is sucking up to any source of gobs of cash. They stand for nothing else. Their desperation will become more and more evident as they realize that as the money goes away, they are likely doomed.

@Billy_y4 - "The US has lost two nuclear submarines: Thresher and Scorpion (God rest the souls). Neither was lost to reactor difficulties. As nearly as can be determined, neither submarine is leaking radioactive material into the ocean. All other naval reactors are safely accounted for."

I didnt know that, but... are you suggesting that the subs will NEVER leak? Is it good enough for you if they hold together for the duration of our lives? No, I dont know how long it will take, but the subs under the ocean are made of metal, not stone, and as such will rot completely in a matter of decades, releasing nuclear waste into the ocean.

Billy, your focus is on the next few decades, and the milleniums after that are ignored - not considered relevent - in your mind. You are not alone. It is short term thinking that has brought us to where we are now. But unless we are resigned to the planet being destroyed, it would be best (for the long term) if we had a very long term mindset.

The waste from nuclear plants has to be stored for not just millenium, but a billion years. Human beings are not capable of that. Civilisations, empires will have come and gone, and human structure cannot commit to anything for a period spanning a millenium. Unless the nuclear waste is ejected into space, it will eventually contaminate the whole earth.

I have not done the maths, on how many power stations years it would take to produce enough waste to contaminate the entire earth. But like our carbondioxide problem, and like dumping mercury waste into the ocean, I bet a nuclear waste problelm it will catch up with us soon enough. The nuclear waste will eventually contaminate the whole world.

Those who have done the maths on wind power have shown it to be far cheaper for the same output. Oh, there is a problem with energy storage for the slack periods, and to be frank, there is no combination of alternatives that can replace coal and oil. But in the end it is we who will have to change. That, or condemn human habitation on this planet to a space of a lifetime or a few lifetimes.

Are you sick-and-tired of hearing the views of ONLY the "top 3 presidential contenders"?

Kucinich has NOT dropped off the face of the Earth and seems to be the ONLY candidate who for years has NOT been behind the eight ball: Here is the position he has held and continues to hold:

"As the world population soars towards eight billion, critical issues of survival face all of us. Living on a planet of finite resources means that human life can not be sustained indefinitely without careful thought and compassion coupled with political courage.

No candidate understands the precarious environmental perch man sits on more than Dennis Kucinich who has promised:

As President, I will lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments. I will also lead in fighting for clean, affordable and accessible drinking water. I have worked hand-in-hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

Dennis' eloquent, factual challenges to the nuclear industry's attempts to develop a waste site at Yucca Mountain in Utah are well-documented. Here is just a bit of his statement made on April 25, 2002:

"The transportation of this waste would require over 96,000 truck shipments over four decades. Almost every major east-west interstate highway and mainline railroad in the country would experience high-level waste shipments as waste is moved from reactors and other sites in 39 states.

The Department of Energy proposes to directly impact 44 states and many of the major metropolitan areas in the nation, at least 109 cities with populations exceeding 100,000. Highway shipments alone will impact at least 703 counties with a combined population of 123 million people. Nationally, 11 million people reside within one- half mile of a truck or rail route.

This never-before-attempted radioactive materials transportation effort would bring with it a constellation of hazards and risks, including potentially serious economic damage and property value losses in cities and communities along shipping routes. A major concern will be the increased security risk since these shipments represent, in effect, nuclear mobile targets which will travel through some of our most populous and vulnerable metropolitan areas. This committee must understand that high-level nuclear waste will remain deadly for a million years.

If sending nuclear waste down our roads and rails with limited safeguards doesn't bother you, then maybe placing this deadly waste on barges in our rivers, lakes, and oceans will. Due to a lack of rail facilities near several reactors, the Department of Energy will use barge shipments to move this waste to a port capable of transferring the 120-ton cask to a train.

Some of these shipments will traverse the Great Lakes; the world's largest source of fresh water. Over 35 million people living in the Great Lakes basin get their drinking water from the Great Lakes, and I venture to guess they will not appreciate the fact that nuclear waste is being shipped across their drinking water. I cannot support any plan that even contemplates shipping highly radioactive waste in the Great Lakes."

Dennis Kucinich has demonstrated that the greatest nuclear threat most Americans face is from the nuclear industry – not terrorists. According to the Nuclear Control Institute more "bomb material [plutonium] enters civilian commerce than exists in all of the world's nuclear weapons." Those who place profits over public safety are a greater danger than any external threats. Of course, the fact that we offer nuclear plants and radioactive shipments as a productive target for those who wish us ill should not be ignored in planning America's energy needs nor the inherent dangers of the plants and waste produced.

The United States under a Kucinich presidency would reverse the unsustainable actions in the following areas:
1) Energy consumption
2) Military spending
3) Economic and tax policy
4) Environmental policy
5) Land and water use

After global warming, water use and availability may be the most important sustainability issue of all. In Dennis' words:

"All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain. It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water to its peoples. There shall be public ownership of drinking water systems, subject to municipal control Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival. Water shall be protected from commodification and exempted from all trade agreements. Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal or loan forgiveness. Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights. Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets. Water resources shall be protected from pollution. Our children should be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life. [I would] recommend a series of declarative sentences which can serve as the basis for a course of action. We shall call these ten principles "Water Marks."

1. All water shall be considered to be forever in the public domain.
2. It shall be the duty of each nation to provide accessible, affordable drinking water.
3. There shall be public ownership of drinking water.
4. Wealthy nations shall provide poor nations with the means to obtain water for survival.
5. Water shall be protected from commodification and exempted from all trade agreements.
6. Water privatization shall not be a condition of debt restructuring, loan renewal, or loan forgiveness.
7. Governments shall use their powers to prevent private aggregation of water rights.
8. Water shall be conserved through sustainable agriculture and encouraging plant-based diets.
9. Water resources shall be protected from pollution.
10. Our children shall be educated about the essential nature of water for maintaining life."..."

Only voting records will reveal the honesty and integrity of the current presidential candidates. Kucinich has NEVER wavered from what he believes!

ADELETHECZECH

well it wasn't PEACE CANDIDATE who mentioned the 'fake' smile. it was me COCO. so please do tell us what ails mr. edwards' wife. you seem to be in the know.

HUCK

france re-cycles their presidents too

DEATHTOTYRANTS

i'm sure the gulf emirates countries would happily build your nuclear plants within 2 years. they are doing marvellous things with regard to reclaiming the sea out there and building 'worthless' structures.

I don't particularly like U.S. plurality-take-all elections, even when they're not stolen.

I look at the polls. If two or three candidates are close enough, I vote for the lesser of the two or three evils. If there's no chance of affecting the election I vote for the best guy.

Given the choices of Hill (a moderate Republican complete with corruption), Obama (a Democrat, but pro-nuclear and sometimes looks wistfully at being a Republican) and Edwards (says many right things, should not threaten to sic the IRS on people to pay for a filthy rotten health care system, kind of a war hawk underneath), I'll pull a lever for Edwards. If Edwards bombs, I'll take Kucinich.

Sorry the system is so rotten that I can't vote for your candidate.

Billy_y4 wrote: ...Thresher and Scorpion.... Neither was lost to reactor difficulties.

The cause of Thresher's demise has been suggested as due to a blown salt-water pipe in the engine room, that caused the reactor controls to scram and shut down. Without power, the sub fell below crush depth and was lost. I believe that constitutes a major nuclear accident. To be fair to the Navy, they implemented a significant safety program thereafter.

Nothing is known of the reason for the loss of the Scorpion. Until significant remains of the sub are recovered (from 10,000'), nothing can be said of the cause (unless the Navy is with-holding information).

Dear Death,

Congratulations on your decision to go with geothermal space conditioning. I considered it about 5 years ago when my oil furnace died but the added cost gave me cold feet. I ended up installing a conventional heat pump. I regret the decision almost daily.

There are currently 104 nuclear power plants in the US that provide 20% of our electricity. About 50% of our electricity comes from coal and, in my opinion, should be replaced with nuclear power. This would require about 200 new nuclear plants (The new designs are, on average, more powerful than the fleet that we have now.) Unless you are speaking, worldwide, 1000 reactors is an unrealistic number.

PV solar can be installed on an individual home and a rural homesteader could install a local wind turbine but exploiting most of the other renewable energy sources requires some sort of a corporate or large highly structured community organization and some sort of government licensing and oversight. (You're gonna have to deal with the man. He's gonna be there.)

Bill

A factor not considered is the number of nuclear plants that will need to be constructed and when they will be online. To replace today's requirements will require hundreds, if not thousands of additional plants, none of which can be available for upwards of 20 years. When they're online, imagine today's waste problems which we cannot solve multiplied by factors of 100. Add to that centralized control away from the power of the people, no competition and you have just another oil monopoly that control bush and cheney now. Fuck them. Renewable resources will not be controlled by abusers of our democracy, because wind, sun, hydrogen and geothermal are available to all. If you don't know of the opportunities that are coming online, find out. Then vote for anyone who is against consolidations of power like implementing nuclear, and who supports development of renewable power.

Here's just a single example worth looking into. I've been looking into an alternate way to air condition my home, since my hoa won't let me have a conventional air conditioner(ponder that). Drilling vertical pipes a couple of hundred feet into the ground (geothermal) will cool, heat and provide hot water for much less cost than conventional sources (higher upfront costs, though). The end result is that you don't pollute, and are not dependent on big oil, or nuclear, or big anything. Consider doing it now!

I can go on and on about this, the new sources of energy coming online. Educate yourselves, and do not give in to the fear mongers that will prevail if they can. They already control almost all presidential candidates. ACT!

DOOM & GLOOM: I like your points as per decentralization. Another aspect relevant is promoting conservation. Maybe because I am thin in a nation of such grotesque obesity, but whenever I enter a public building, I am amazed by how cold it is. Is there really a need to have AC pumping to make 69 the preferable temperature? So let' em sweat a little! Same with heating. As I mentioned recently, my electric bill was $23 last month. I turn lights out, I only use a small space heater (if needed) in the room I am working in, and appliances are efficient.

I believe we could all scale back a good deal. And as for decentralization, if predictions are correct about fiscal challenges and aberrant weather events, this type of adaptation will be required anyway. Meanwhile, recycle, cut back usage, learn to live simply, and HONOR what is given.

peace candidate, your denigration of Edwards is hardly a reason for me to switch my support of him to Kucinich. I admire Kucinich, but I'm not going to vote for him, period. I'm voting in the NH primary for Edwards because he has a fighting chance at winning, and I support his center-left positions as opposed to the center-right Clinton and Obama. And I want to thank the LA Times (and Common Dreams) for distinguishing Edwards as the anti-nuke candidate that he is. There is no such thing as "safe nuclear" and if my tax dollars are going to be spent on energy R&D, I want it spent on making solar and wind cheap and efficient.

If any Iowa caucusers or NH primary voters are reading this, please support Edwards as the electable progressive candidate!

What's with all the Edwards-bashing here?

Nova Scotian said: "He is now talking a good "anti-corporate" game, but he's swimming in a huge pool of tainted campaign cash." Tainted? Not unless you think trial lawyers who go up against Corporate America on behalf of injured citizens are "tainted" because they take a percentage of the settlements. Edwards is the only major candidate who's taking public funding in this election cycle and NO corporate money. Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson are all raking in corporate cash. So who's "tainted?"

Peace Candidate claims: "He [Edwards] only opposes nuclear power because it will help him steal Kucinich supporters." Huh? Edwards has been opposed to nuclear plants since the beginning (I know, because this issue is a BIG DEAL to me and I went on his website early on to check it).

Peace C. continues: "Edwards is a panderer and a health care FASCIST! Kucinich is the real deal." Well, I'm for Dennis's Medicare for All, but right now it's Mission Impossible! If you check Edwards' plan carefully, he offers the option to sign up with private insurers OR Medicare. This is the only way we'll get single payer without waiting another 50 years -- in through the back door as one option among many.

Then Huck chimes in: "[Edwards] has caved in to the insurance industry, providing a blank check rather than endorse Kucinich's single payer plan. The single payer plan is good enough for Congress but not good enough for us." Huck, Congress doesn't HAVE a single payer plan. They have a Chinese menu of plans from private insurers to choose from. The big difference is that they don't PAY for most of their premiums; we taxpayers do! And Edwards has added a nifty fillip to his proposal: that if Congress doesn't pass his health care plan in the first session, they will lose their own health insurance (Whoa!). Not exactly subtle -- more like a kick in the head, which is what Congress needs to stop them from sucking up to Harry and Louise again.

It's getting late in the game, and as a way-far-leftie on economic issues -- including trade -- I've concluded that Edwards is my guy, even though on illegal immigration he's not standing up for Americans and legal immigrants (well, one can't have everything). And Peace Candidate, did it ever occur to you that the smile you call "fake" may look that way because of Edwards' anguish about his wife's condition? Have a heart.

PEACE CANDIDATE

look at the photo of edwards. it's so bloody contrived. i don't profess to be knowlegeable about american politics (but ARVY is teaching me) however, it doesn't take a political scientist to see the fake smile on this guy's face............. i certainly wouldn't buy a used car from him.