‘Green News Report’ – February 26, 2009

17 Comments on “‘Green News Report’ – February 26, 2009”

1. We are loosing 350 million year old Appalachian Mountains because of one simple word “GREED”. We are being bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America. They can say all they want about our heroic patriotic leader keeping the homeland safe from another terrorist attack since 9/11. THE CLEAN COAL INDUSTRY has decapitated my home. http://www.wisecountyissues.com

2. There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources.Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV’s instead had plug-in electric drive trainsthe amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

3. Thanks for the links!

   We didn’t have enough time in today’s report to cover the latest developments in the long-running fight for an outright ban on mountaintop removal by coal mining companies.

   Here are a few links to get more information on this incredibly destructive technique:

   Mountaintop-removal mining is devastating Appalachia, but residents are fighting back

   Court Rules in Favor of Mountaintop Removal

4. TP ~ Is obviously a non issue for me … Butt, Wilburrr say using both sides is out of the question . . .

5. A much needed audio compilation of environmental/green issues that is exciting and informative. Brad and Desi dare not to bore! BuzzFlash listens to every Green news report….Cars made of seaweed? Find out about it here.

6. The new green energy is not all it is cracked up to be.The miles and miles of new transmision lines for wind energy is a case in point.
   (1) Wind farms only produce energy in spits and spurts. The turbines have to shut down with high winds as the blades cause friction fires. The energy can’t be stored.The transmission lines are at capacity.That is the reason for all the new transmission lines.
   (2) The corporations which build them are tax subsidized so there is little cost to them. Now the transmission lines will be tax subsidized as well. The corporations rake in the money at our expense.
   (3) Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic advisor bought up a lot of Enron assets…ex execs went with the package.(Enron was into wind farms) Larry probably wrote the legislation and will make huge money on the green initiative.He is known among environmentalists for dumping toxic waste into third world countries.He works from his group D E Shaw. The corporation he is invested in is First Wind. They operate exactly like Enron.
   (4)Harry Reid has legislation to be introduced soon which will take the siting of transmission lines and wind farms out of the state’s hands. Unfortunately, the stage has been set for this in the 2005 Energy Act. “Reliability comes before environment, cost and public opinion.” There will be a lot of land taken by emminent domain. The propaganda can only be likened to the run up to the Iraq war. If you have heard of the Schock Doctrine’s thesis. Corporations take advantage of natural and man made disaster for profit. The 2005 Energy act came after a black out. Wind Power is the most unreliable source of power there is. But that does not seem to make any difference.

7. Thanks, Mark! If we can someday make ourselves as indispensable to issues of green news, as BuzzFlash has made itself to coverage of progressive issues — (That’s progressive! Not Democratic! Not “liberal”! But progressive!) — then we will be quite proud, indeed.

   Workin’ on it. So thanks for the vote of confidence and the always great support!

8. Molly — No one is suggesting that any one renewable energy source is going to be the answer to all of our energy needs; the point is to diversify our energy needs with infinite, renewable sources of energy, as opposed to using up more of our finite, non-renewable, polluting resources.

   Thanks for your thoughts. While I happen to disagree with much of what you wrote, you are certainly welcome to post your concerns here. The dialogue is much appreciated, and links are helpful to support your information when you have them available.

9. Des, Molly has a NIMBY thing going on at her place.

   But, she is correct in one respect, they do not want to give credits to homeowners for roof photovoltaic panels because they can’t control the charge per KWH or tax your home electricity usage as much as they would like to.

   If every house had photo, demand for power would drop so low for the power plants late afternoon that they would have to start shutting some of them off during non-peak or shut them down all together or the utilities would go broke.

   I like that idea.

10. If we go down the road that President Obama has mentioned in his speech, what we can look forward to is poverty for everyone in the US except the very few who will be able to afford all the energy they need. It’s very deceptive of many environmentalists to keep drumming the wind and solar drums. Wind and solar can’t provide the US energy needs.

    The greenest cleanest energy is not wind or solar but nuclear energy. Specifically there is a form of nuclear reactor that operates on thorium which produces very little waste products and is much more efficient than conventional nuclear reactors.

    Rather than the fantasy nonsense of hte wind and solar lobbyists, read about the Aim High plan. I doubt you’ve heard anything like it an dthe technology is not new. It was developed at the Oak Ridge National Labrotories since the 1950’s but instead the military industrial complex wanted conventional nuclear power plants that we have today cause they needed plutonium for weapons.

    Here is the blog that describes the Aim High plan and it’s advantages and hope for not only the US but developing nations and the rest of the world.

    Aim High Plan for Factory Mass Produced Liquid Flouride Reactors

11. Forgot to add here is the Aim High site with a video presentation of the plan

    Aim High!

12. I despise centralized power plants, why not just put a sodium borohydride reactor and a 15 KW fuel cell in every garage and solar panels on every roof and forget about the grid?
    You can always use it to heat your water and your house and fill up your hydrogen vehicle too.
    They could deliver the recycled sodium borohydride compound to your home like they do with water softener salt and take your spent compound away to be regenerated again.
    The technology is here, Bi Goil and utilities don’t want it, that’s why.

13. Konstantin, thanks for your comments. We hope that by discussing these news developments, a straightforward, responsible, productive dialogue can help us all move forward.

    Until the problem of nuclear waste is solved, considerable resistance to nuclear power is unavoidable. Even with the method you describe, there is still radioactive waste product that must be safely stored for milennia, and we do not currently have the capacity or locations to do so.

    Other issues with nuclear energy are the long lead time, expense and regulatory hurdles in building new plants; current federal law that prohibits re-use of nuclear waste to control the threat of weapons-proliferation; the environmental destruction of our natural resources in order to mine nuclear materials; national security implications; and the competition for water supplies in a time of drought across much of the U.S., and the effects of higher temperatures associated with climate change. (In summer of 2007, the TVA had to shut down a nuclear power plant because the river water was too hot to sufficiently cool the reactor.)

    Currently, it takes about ten years and a billion dollars to bring a nuclear power plant online (without even addressing where the radioactive waste will be stored). In contrast, a central solar power plant can be online within five, including environmental and regulatory requirements, at a fraction of the cost.

    These are not insurmountable hurdles for nuclear power — with proper research & development funding to solve these problems, there is no reason nuclear power can’t be a part of a diversified energy portfolio.

    It is important to acknowledge all of the pros and cons so that we can finally have an intelligent, rational discussion of our current and future energy needs.

    We encourage open, honest discussion of our energy options here, because no one source/resource is going to be the ‘silver bullet’ that solves all or problems. Thanks for your comments.

14. OMG is Obama going to eat that giant watermelon himself?

    racist cartoon! racist cartoon!

15. Biiiiiiig stretch just to make a snide remark, crf.

16. Sorry I haven’t checked this topic for replies until now.

    DES said on 2/28/2009 @ 10:44 am PT…

    Until the problem of nuclear waste is solved, considerable resistance to nuclear power is unavoidable. Even with the method you describe, there is still radioactive waste product that must be safely stored for milennia, and we do not currently have the capacity or locations to do so.

    You may have not seen the presentation or read the links. There is very little waste. these are not the conventional nuclear reactors that you’re used to.

    Other issues with nuclear energy are the long lead time, expense and regulatory hurdles in building new plants;

    Again you did not see the presentation or read the links. These designs are very simple that do not need a mountain of regulations.

    current federal law that prohibits re-use of nuclear waste to control the threat of weapons-proliferation;

    Again you did not see the presentation or read the links. There is virtually no proliferation threat from these nuclear reactors. Furthumore, there is no proliferation threat from a conventional nuclear reactor built in the Unisted States.

    the environmental destruction of our natural resources in order to mine nuclear materials; national security implications; and the competition for water supplies in a time of drought across much of the U.S., and the effects of higher temperatures associated with climate change. (In summer of 2007, the TVA had to shut down a nuclear power plant because the river water was too hot to sufficiently cool the reactor.)

    Again you did not see the presentation or read the links. These nuclear reactors are no tthe nuclear reactors you are used to. The thorium needed for them to last at least 1,000 years has already been mined. They can even burn up the nuclear waste that’s now siting at power plants.

    Currently, it takes about ten years and a billion dollars to bring a nuclear power plant online (without even addressing where the radioactive waste will be stored). In contrast, a central solar power plant can be online within five, including environmental and regulatory requirements, at a fraction of the cost.

    Again you did not see the presentation or read the links. Solar power plants cannot provide reliable power and require alot of natural resources.

    These are not insurmountable hurdles for nuclear power — with proper research & development funding to solve these problems, there is no reason nuclear power can’t be a part of a diversified energy portfolio.

    It is important to acknowledge all of the pros and cons so that we can finally have an intelligent, rational discussion of our current and future energy needs.

    The research has been done. Solar and wind are unreliable and will not provide enough power for all the world’s people but thorium reactors can.

    We encourage open, honest discussion of our energy options here, because no one source/resource is going to be the ‘silver bullet’ that solves all or problems. Thanks for your comments.

17. Konstantin, thanks for returning to comment.

    Perhaps you did not understand the point of my response. It is a simple statement of fact that the nuclear energy industry will continue to encounter widespread resistance until a majority of the government, business and advocacy groups allied against nuclear energy are convinced the problems have been adequately addressed before they will endorse moving forward with further nuclear energy development.

    The Union of Concerned Scientists says, “While some supporters of a U.S. reprocessing program believe it would help solve the nuclear waste problem, reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste.”

    The “very little waste” from thorium reactors you cite may very well still be too much for some people. Yet the inescapable fact is they are the ones who need to be convinced — not me.

    Secondly, simply asserting that waste and non-proliferation are no longer an issue has clearly failed to get the ball rolling. Since the restrictions placed on recycling of nuclear waste were established by President Ford and made permanent by President Carter, it will take concerted lobbying of the Obama Administration and possibly Congress to address the issues of reprocessing. No doubt the nuclear energy industry has taken steps to ensure its interests are well-represented in Washington, via lobbyists and advocacy groups.

    Lastly, your assertion that solar and wind energy can never provide enough energy is similarly unsupported when we know that the amount of the sun’s energy that reaches the earth in one hour is enough to supply global energy needs for one year. It is hypocritical to suggest that since we have not yet achieved the technology to harness the sun’s energy effectively means we never will and we should never try — because that is the same as asserting that nuclear energy can never be used because we do not currently have the technology to [insert any argument against nuclear energy here].

    Again, thanks for your comments.

Comments are closed.