Climate Deniers Fiddle while the Earth Burns
By SueN
The 2015 wildfire season is off to a blazing start.
And, even though you may not be in the immediate area, that doesn't mean that you're safe from the impact of the fires.
According to the Think Progress Blog, there were 45 large, active wildfires burning in Western states as of June 30th, and fires in Alaska – yes, Alaska – have already consumed more than one million acres of land this year alone.
The lingering drought and above-average temperatures have created the perfect environment for wildfires to start, spread, and intensify. But, the flames aren't the only reason that these fires are dangerous.
Even for those who live miles away from any ongoing wildfire, smoke pollution can cause serious health concerns. Fine particles within the smoke can cause an increase in asthma attacks and allergies, and can even make conditions like heart disease worse as far as 100 miles away from a large fire.
In addition, as fires burn and destroy forests and surface vegetation, they expose the soil to more erosion, which leads to more drought and a recipe for more wildfires. And, that soil erosion causes more soil and farm runoff into local water ways, and lowers water quality for humans and animals alike.
Although wildfires are a natural occurrence, the last century of pumping carbon in to the atmosphere has made them more likely, and harder to fight.
These massive blazes threaten our homes and our communities, and they pose a serious risk to human life.
We'll never stop all wildfires from happening, but we can stop creating the conditions that make them more likely. To help make the next wildfire seasons less dangerous, we need to do much more in the fight against climate change.
Comments
#2
On the other hand, wildfires help some aspects of the ecosystem.
#3
The climate change deniers can roast in the wildfires, or suck the flood waters from my yard. The weather has become very weird, why can't they see that?
#4
Where I live there is no such thing as a passing shower anymore, it's always a flash flood.....been that way since spring.
I had a beer with a woman from California last night, instead of oil, she wonders why we don't build water pipelines across the country.......giant infrastructure project to stimulate the economy.
There is nothing more important than the fight against climate change..... unless you're a short sighted selfish ass.
#5
Climate deniers are not the big problem. Nuclear deniers are the REAL problem. Solar & wind electricity is just a scam and a joke. The only real practical renewable is conventional hydro and that is severely limited by geography. Only nuclear energy is capable of replacing fossil fuels and big carbon/big banking knows that very well. They have been using the renewable energy scam for over 30 yrs to misdirect effort from the only practical alternative to oil, gas & coal, which is of course, clean, green nuclear energy.
Way back in 1979 the Oil Heat Institute of Long Island financed a vicious campaign against the Nuclear power plant being built there. And in their large newspaper ads and bumper stickers slogan was SOLAR NOT NUCLEAR. Meanwhile most of Long Islands electricity came from burning oil, the rest from natural gas, they are up to 1% solar electricity now, 35 years later, no nuclear. Some success for the environment that was – a success for Big Oil.
The World's #1 Climatologist James Hansen on Big Oil's renewable energy bait-and-switch scam:
"....The tragedy is that many environmentalists line up on the side of the fossil fuel industry, advocating renewables as if they, plus energy efficiency, would solve the global climate change matter. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
This Easter Bunny fable is the basis of 'policy' thinking of many liberal politicians. Because they realize that renewable energies are grossly inadequate for our energy needs now and in the foreseeable future and they have no real plan. They pay homage to the Easter Bunny fantasy, because it is the easy thing to do in politics.
It will be a tragedy if environmentalists allow the illusion of ‘soft’ energies to postpone demand for real solution of the energy, climate and national security problems. Solar power is just a small part of the solution. Subsidies yielding even its present tiny contribution may be unsustainable. The main conclusion is to keep an open mind. China and India will increase nuclear power use; they must if they are to phase out coal over the next few decades. It behooves us to be objective..."
Jim Hansen is telling it like it is. That's why Big Oil/Bankster sycophant Obama "resigned" him after he wrote his important paper showing nuclear energy has already saved 1.8 million lives and will save many millions more in the future.
James Lovelock, father of environmentalism:
"...Nuclear Power is the only green solution..."
The #1 Green Economist Jeffrey Sachs:
"...Nuclear power is the only solution to climate change..."
"...Sachs warned that "nice projects" around the world involving renewable power or energy efficiency would not be enough to stave off the catastrophic effects of global warming..."
World renowned environmentalist & progressive liberal George Monbiot:
"...How the Fukushima disaster taught me to stop worrying and embrace nuclear power..."
#6
Quote Instant-Runoff:Climate deniers are not the big problem. Nuclear deniers are the REAL problem. Solar & wind electricity is just a scam and a joke. The only real practical renewable is conventional hydro and that is severely limited by geography. Only nuclear energy is capable of replacing fossil fuels and big carbon/big banking knows that very well. They have been using the renewable energy scam for over 30 yrs to misdirect effort from the only practical alternative to oil, gas & coal, which is of course, clean, green nuclear energy.
Instant-Runoff ~ That is the biggest joke I've ever heard. The problem with the Nuclear industry is that it is not cost effective. When you phase in the costs of disposal of waste, and decontamination of an ecosphere after an accident, the cost of nuclear energy is far greater than anything humanity can afford - even more so than fossil fuels.
Contrary to your claims, solar and wind are excellent sources of cheap renewable energy. Solar more so. In fact, all fossil fuels are is ancient storage of solar energy. There is nothing like fresh solar power to replace a large chunk of fossil fuel energy. However, you are correct in assuming that it will not replace all energy needs using chemical solar cells. That is why plant cells are also necessary.
That leads me to introduce one source you are overlooking - Hemp biomass. It is estimated by the Department of Energy that we could produce enough fuel from Hemp biomass to replace all fossil fuels in the US by only using 6% of the land of the nation. Unlike with the production of fossil fuels or nuclear energy, the only byproduct produced from growing hemp is oxygen while carbon dioxide is sucked out of and removed from the air. Hemp, unlike fossil fuels or nuclear energy, produces no unwanted by products; and, actually cleans the atmosphere reversing the greenhouse effect.
But don't take my word for it...
http://dailynexus.com/2011-04-18/hemp-potentially-replace-reliance-fossil-fuels/
#7
Instant-RunOff, here we go again.
You've accused me of being a "corporate stooge" and a "shill for the elite" just because I'm opposed to nuclear energy. That's got to be the biggest joke of all. If the nuclear power industry isn't corporate, I don't know what is.
When it comes to this stuff, your posts are a scam and a joke. Why don't you quit while you're behind?
#8
Nuclear is not cost effective?!? Are you kidding me?
Germany, the wealthiest nation in Europe, committed to abandon Nuclear and go on a renewable energy pipe dream with a religious fervor, over 20 yrs ago. Result: in 2013 their electricity generation was 66% NG & Coal, mostly Coal with some chopped down forests mixed in to greenwash the filthy coal, 15% Nuclear, 4.3% Hydro and a whopping 14% combined Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal. i.e. They still produced more from their "long abandoned" Nuclear than their massively subsidized Solar & Wind.
And they have the 2nd highest electricity prices in the EU & 2nd highest emissions in CO2/kwh generated. Indeed it has 9X the emissions per unit power of nuclear France and 5X the emissions of nuclear Ontario.
Much poorer France went from 0-70% clean nuclear electricity in 20 yrs with a mundane effort. And they are the world’s largest electricity exporter and EXPORTS as much green electricity as all of Germany’s hyped up Wind & Solar combined. France household electricity price is half that of Germany. And still managed a 4 day, max 35 hr work week, with minimum 5 weeks paid vacation. Most get 8 weeks, And the best social services in the EU, including free home doctor visits. Makes Germany look pathetic.
There is NO instance of renewable energy successfully replacing significant fossil fuels, outside of the practical conventional hydro, which is severely limited, and Iceland, the best geothermal location on the planet, has had success with geothermal low grade building heat and some electricity generation. But still gets 70% of its electricity from conventional hydro.
As for your nutty hemp fantasy. If you converted all currently utilized arable land in North America to the highest yield (higher than hemp) switchgrass production, it would not even supply 1/3rd of United States current energy consumption. And that comes with major additional caveats. Like transportation difficulties, water shortages, fertilizer shortages, low efficiency, low EROEI. Not just impractical, but flatly impossible. Give up on pipe dreams.
Here is a good article for you to learn about the harsh reality of biomass & biofuels. Called a "crazy idea". Alice Friedemann:
http://energyskeptic.com/2015/peaksoil/
#9
Wonderland, the best argument you could come up with against nuclear is:
"...A quack-quack here and a quack-quack there... here a quack, there a quack.... ee-eye-ee-eye-ohhhh!
I don't see anyone taking your side except that wienie-sucking bimbo..."
You might want to quit at that, when you are at your best.
P.S. Big Oil and their Bankster overseers luv ya.
Making sure they can get vast wealth on their globalist, debt-engendering $US trade in Oil & Gas. Oil being the #1 component of international trade, all in their globalist $US debt currency. Wouldn't want any of that low cost, indigenous, American jobs, no globalist trade, no globalist debt, clean, green Nuclear energy.
Their MSM & Greenpace bought-and-paid-for fear mongering on the Fukushima incident made Big Oil some $352B in four years. That's just in Japan's increased fuel imports. I thought you were against global warming?
Funny how you have no problem with all that smoke, ash & GHG been pumped into Japan's atmosphere to replace stupidly shutdown zero-CO2 nuclear. And Japan having effectively sentenced to death 14,000 good citizens with the effects of those increased emissions, using WHO data on induced health effects of Coal, Oil & Gas emissions over Nuclear during those same four years.
#10
"Nutty hemp fantasy"? Gimmie a break. It doesn't get any nuttier than the quack technology you're promoting, RunOff. Doesn't get any more hypocritical either! Because no matter what you say to minimize or obscure reality, nuclear technology consumes a crapload of the fossil fuel you claim to hate so much.
What’s more, you can’t have nuclear energy without uranium mining. This spells nothing but trouble for the environment and for the humans & wildlife who live there.
I just did a google search on uranium mining and what I dug up ain’t pretty. Case in point: the Schwartzwalder Mine in Jefferson County, northwest of Denver, Colorado, in operation from 1965 until 2000. Just so happens the Schwartzwalder Mine left a big mess the Colorado Cotter Corporation has neglected to clean up or take responsibility for (surprise, surprise!). Colorado’s Dept. of Public Health & Environment has taken the Cotter Corp. to task for the environmental ruin they have caused. To this day, groundwater near the Schwartzwalder Mine is contaminated with uranium levels a thousand times higher than human health standards can absorb.
Over the past five years Cotter has come up against repeated state orders to pump and treat this toxic water, filling the mine and poisoning nearby reservoirs. For example: Ralston Creek, which flows into Denver Water’s Ralston Reservoir, is contaminated by uranium levels at 310 ppb. Cotter agreed to clean up this toxic water from the abandoned mine, but all they actually did was pump & clean surface ponds; not the poisoned water inside the mineshafts! They also ignored state orders to clean the site, refusing to pay state fines for their failure to do so. They even had the audacity to deny that the toxic water they poisoned is contaminating Ralston Creek, flat-out denying any responsibility for cleaning up their putrid goddam mess.
Concentration violations Cotter is responsible for include uranium, boron, chromium, copper, cyanide, fluride, zinc, thallium and radium 226 (YUM!). And to this day the legal battle drags on. I reckon it’s a safe bet this mess has had a negative impact on public health, as water in that mining shaft continues posing a threat to public water supplies.
The Canon City Mill site, adjacent to Canon City, Colorado, is also owned & operated by Cotter Corporation. It operated nonstop from 1958 until 1979, and has been intermittantly active since that time. Prior to 1980, Cotter Corporation dumped its uranium processing waste into “unlined bonds”, causing molybdenum, uranium and other contaminates to leach into the groundwater where it spread to Lincoln Park and local wells. They’ve been cited for numerous environmental AND labor violations while its negligence of EPA standards is ongoing. In March of ’08 Cotter pleaded guilty for the poisoning deaths of geese and other migratory birds that were killed by a solvent poisoning the pond.
Colorado remains stuck with a myriad of abandoned, inactive uranium mines these corporate hacks have neglected to clean up. Meanwhile the U.S. EPA has had the Cotter Mill on its Superfund National Priorities list since 1984.
Seems to me that YOU, RunOff, are the one shilling for the corporate elite.
A quack-quack here and a quack-quack there... ee-eye-ee-eye-ohhhhh!
#11
Next we come to another hazard associated with nuclear power: RADIATION. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists: “Floods, fires and earthquakes can combine with aging facilities and error-prone humans in devastating ways.” Reactors and waste storage facilities also make ideal targets for terrorists. So tell me, Einstein: do you honestly believe these corporate hacks can be trusted to uphold the security measures needed to prevent such an attack?
Radioactive isotopes released in nuclear power plant accidents include I-131 and Cs-137, and in the worst-case scenarios such as the Chernobyl accident in 1986, other toxic isotopes such as strontium-90 and plutonium-239 may simultaneously be released. Human exposure to I-131 released from nuclear power plant accidents is attributed to contaminated water, milk and food. People are also exposed by breathing dust particles in the air, contaminated by I-131. Once inside the body, I-131 collects in the thyroid gland which uses iodine to create hormones that regulate the body’s use of energy. Since the thyroid can’t distinguish between I-131 and nonradioactive iodine, either can be absorbed, causing thyroid cancer many years later; especially for young people.
Exposure to Cs-137 can be either external or internal. External exposure occurs while walking on contaminated soil, or is caused by contact with toxic debris at nuclear accident sites. Internal exposure is caused by breathing particles in the air containing Cs-137 from contaminated soil, or ingesting contaminated water or food. Ionizing radiation released by Cs-137 exposes all organs & tissues of the body.
Workers at the nuclear facility who absorbed more than 6 “grays” of radiation, in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, became ill immediately afterwards and died. The hundreds of thousands of people in the cleanup crews exposed to lower external doses of ionizing radiation (ranging from roughly 0.14 “grays” of radiation to 0.04 “grays”, between 1986 & ’89) were at risk of leukemia. The six & a half million residents of the contaminated areas surrounding Chernobyl were exposed to much lower doses of radiation between 1986 and 2005 (twenty years!). The children and teenager from that group were at high risk of developing thyroid cancer. The damage caused by I-131 has one at risk of contracting this disease for for at least twenty years after initial exposure.
According to Bernard L. Cohen, Professor at the Univerisity of Pittsburgh: “This radiation consists of subatomic particles traveling at or near the velocity o light — 186,00 miles per second. They can penetrate deep inside the human body where they can damage biological cells and thereby initiate a cancer. If they strike sex cells, they can cause genetic diseases in progeny.”
A quack-quack here and a quack-quack there….
But seriously, folks… after reading all this, I’d say that wind, solar, wave and hemp-based energy sources are all looking mighty good!
#12
I'm from Colorado and I was stationed in Germany when Chernobyl blew. I personally know several workers in the nuclear field. My life experience makes me very wary of nuclear power. I find it hard to buy the anti-corporate argument for nuclear power. Who else can afford the costs?
#13
Seeker, thanks for your input. Nothing like first-hand experience to give credability to the case against uranium mining and nuclear power!
#14
So, seeker64, you probably had an experience similar to Thom's when he went to Germany after Chernobyl.
#15
Anything you can say about nuclear you will get much worse with ANY alternative. You understand how Hansens Peer Reviewed analysis came up with 1.8 million lives saved.
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal (elect,heat,cook–world avg)--- 100,000 ( 26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal electricity – world avg--- 60,000 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal (elect,heat,cook – China)--- 170,000
Coal electricity- China --- 90,000
Coal – U.S.--- 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)
Oil--- 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas--- 4,000 (20% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass--- 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop)--- 440 (0.2% global electricity)
Wind--- 150 (1.6% global electricity)
Hydro – global average--- 1,400 (15% global electricity)
Nuclear – global average--- 90 (17% global electricity w/Chernobyl and Fukashima)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/01/al-gore-does-not-think-climate-change.html
I can't believe these Big Oil & King Coal dupes who whine about the 1000X lower bad enviro effects of Nuclear than Fossil fuels. Solar & wind of course being just a bait-and-switch scam financed by Big Carbon & their Bankster overseers.
Nuclear actually requires very little mining, and that mining is much cleaner than any other mining except maybe diamonds. The energy density of uranium is so high, 3.3 million X greater than coal, that only tiny amounts need to be mined. In fact to supply an 80 yr lifetime of per capita USA electricity consumption would need 1.1 million lbs of mined coal (i.e. mountain top removal, giant strip mines), that's high grade bituminous coal used in US power plants, not low grade brown coal used in Germany, for instance. To obtain the same electricity from uranium, you can do that with 0.34 lbs. In fact there is enough uranium and thorium in that 1.1 million lbs of coal ash to supply 16 American's their lifetime share of electricity, burnt in high-burn GenIV reactors.
In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale:
"...This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-co...
In fact the radioactive thorium in the tailings or waste from the wind & solar Rare Earth mines is enough to power the entire United States, burnt in molten salt reactors like LFTR. One American with a shovel, in 3 hours can dig up enough thorium in a Rare Earth mine tailings dump to power their entire lifetime energy supply, burnt in a thorium reactor.
#16
instant runoff -- Do you have any links or references that compare energy efficiency of the various renewables e.g.. hemp, switchblade grass, sugar beets, corn etc.
Also, Obama certainly talks like a sycophant for nuclear industry also.
#17
Instant-Runoff - Can you provide ANY links to support any of the package of goods that you are selling? As far as I am concerned you are just "Blowing Wind." And, personally, I don't like the toxic smell in that wind...
#18
RunOff, you spout a great line against fossil fuel as if nuclear was a real alternative, conveniently ignoring the simple fact that nuclear technology consumes large amounts of fossil fuel. I learned this from Thom, by the way. Like I said in that other thread, Thom is not a scientist by profession; but he’s been a science buff all his life and speaks on science-related topics very articulately. I certainly trust what he has to say on this subject, way more than I trust your pompous diatribes.
As I see it, anyone who poses as “anti-corporate” while defending nuclear power is speaking with forked tongue. You gonna tell us nuclear power isn’t corporate, that it isn’t a privately owned, for-profit monopoly?!! Gimmie a break. Not only that, but a technology so risky that no insurance company has been willing to insure it. And guess who is forced to insure them instead: the TAXPAYERS! I learned that from Thom too.
Why should I trust those fucking numbers you keep spitting out? Like Marc says, you've not identified any sources for that "information".
I googled Hanson, by the way, and frankly I think he’s got his head up his ass. I’ve no use for nuclear shills posing as “environmentalists”, “anti corporate”, or WHATEVER. What's so "green" and "clean" about a technology that leaves radioactive waste no one as yet has figured out how to dispose of safely, that remains toxic for tens of thousands of years?!!!
Just what the hell does it mean when you assert that only ninety deaths per trillion “Whr” (whatever the fuck “Whr” is) have been attributed to nuclear accidents? Does it include only those workers killed right there on the spot, when & where each accident occurred? That figure can’t possibly include all those who worked around the periphery of the Chernobyl disaster site (for example), poisoned by lower doses of radiation resulting in less immediate consequences (i.e. leukemia); or the children and adolescents among the millions living in the contaminated area surrounding the nuclear facility who developed thyroid cancer ten or twenty years after the fact, or the eventual offspring of those children who suffer genetic defects as a direct consequence of nuclear contamination.
I think your numbers are bogus. You’re farting figures into the wind, pal. And you don’t intimidate me with that shit, because that’s all it is, just one big steaming pile of it. So again I ask, why not quit while you’re behind? You’re not persuading anyone here that I can see. The only people who’ve agreed with you (all two of them, in that other thread dated the 6th) weren’t swayed; they’d already bought into this dumb idea of nuclear as a viable “solution” to global warming et cetera, before this discussion even took place.
Got other fish to fry. (Pun intended.)
Cheers! You get to have the last word, RunOff. Happy now? I've had my say, and I'm done arguing with you.
#19
Oh! One more thing RunOff. Were you aware the vast majority of nuclear power plants in this country are way past their prime, that many if not most have been inadequately maintained, neglected and deteriorating? What's more, exceeding the forty-year age limit initially stipulated when they were built. Just thought I'd throw that in for posterity. Cheers!
#20
I don't know about you, but to me an ecosphere and a hemisphere of a planet is a mighty HUGE price to pay for a source of energy. Personally, I'd prefer to provide that source of energy myself, for myself. Yet there will always be the Nuclear shills amongst us who will try to convince us to choose against our best interests.
#21
Unbelievable the crap these Big Oil shills like DanneMarc here come up with. The PNAS - proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of America - actually measured the dosage in fish species caught off of California & Eastern Japan.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/26/10670.full.pdf
The overwhelming source of Fuku contamination is the radioisotopes Cs-137 and Cs-134. With half lives of 30 yrs and 2 yrs. For seafood sampled off of Japanese east coast avg radioisotope levels peaked at 154 Bq/kg which if consumed at the avg Japanese seafood consumption levels would result in a committed effective dose of 32 uSv per year. Brazil nuts have a natural radiation level of 444 Bq/kg. Bananas 100 Bq/kg.
This compares to the natural dose from mostly Potassium-40 and Polonium-210 found in the seafood of 1340 uSv per year. Note natural background radiation in some areas exceeds 100 thousand uSv per year.
For fish caught off the coast of San Diego California, Fuku Cs isotopes would be 10 Bq/kg vs natural radioactive Potassium-40 of 347 Bq/kg and natural Polonium-210 of 79 Bq/kg. Committed effective dosage of annual avg seafood consumption for an American at that rate would be 0.9 uSv/yr vs that from the natural Potassum-40 and Polonium-210 of 570 uSv/yr. Avg annual radiation exposure in the USA is 6200 uSv/yr. Denver, Colorado is 12400 uSv/yr. A popular beach in Brazil up to 800,000 uSv/yr dosage.
These are the facts not well-paid MSM fear mongering and FUD. Explanation: there is no limit that the Banksters and Oil Barons (the 0.000001 percenters) will go to in order to protect their share of the $100 trillion energy market. Nuclear is their only competition.
#22
Wonderland, those highly explosive natural gas pipelines underneath your homes and cities are way past their prime. Many of the aircraft you fly in are way past their prime. Military subs and aircraft carriers and bombers are way past their prime. And so are buildings. So? That's a routine engineering problem. Obviously they are doing a good job because not one nuclear plant has failed due to "way past their prime".
Quit believing in pipe dreams. Without cheap, plentiful energy you will quickly die, and will your children, along with another six billion people on this Earth. You can keep burning coal, oil & gas relentlessly or switch to Nuclear Energy. There is no other choice.
#23
what's happening in California the weather modification should be criminal I'm a Carolina boy love the woods the weather hasn't been natural for decadesI don't know what they're spraying up there but it can't be good! as for a new energy source its laying around in piles at every mine.its called thorium and it is better it runs about 98% efficiency but we can't make nuclear bombs out of it I guess that's the reason we don't use it I respect you Thom but we're misinformed on so so many levels we need to come together as a people for the common good of all especially mother earth she should not be raped and pillaged for profit the the American Indians had it right quit killing and fighting respect people's right to live and be there self and start loving thank you...
#24
Instant-RunOff ~ As (3) of us have requested in this thread alone - I, chuckle8, and Aliceinwonderland - I will ask one last time, PLEASE STATE YOUR SOURCES!!
Without credible sources your statements mean NOTHING!!
#25
Billy, Thorium molten salt reactors are definitely the way to go forward with Nuclear. Funny how the Federal government is giving zip to nil in $R&D for that, in spite of the USA inventing the tech. Main R&D is in China now. But the Feds have 100's of $billions to throw down the sewer on nutty crony corporate scams like wind & solar, hydrogen, ethanol & carbon capture.
A good talk with DR. KIKI INTERVIEWING KIRK SORENSON ON LFTR and the vast energy reserves of Thorium in the Rare Earth Mine tailings that they will pay you to take that thorium away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw&feature=player_embedded#at=51
#26
DAnneMarc I have been linking my sources, and reputable sources, not the crud that you have linked. Like for hemp you link a couple pro-marijuana sites that in one lame article extoll the virtues of hemp, including as a biofuel, with no numbers, no calculations, no analysis, no references. Whereas I linked Alice Friedemann on the subject who gives pages of analysis, calculations and and references.
Now I'm all for hemp, it is an excellent fiber, great for clothing, paper & textiles. And hemp oil is a wonderful food, very high in Omega 3's, if only it wasn't so bloody expensive. And I'm totally pro-marijuana legalization, and nobody hates the drug war more than me. But when greenie religious types go whacky and decide hemp will save the world, provide all of our fuel and energy, a total rejection of rational scientific analysis. Hemp straw in some areas could be competitive with switchgrass, miscanthus, willow or sugarcane for biomass production, but you are in greenie delusional paradise if you think that will even make a significant dent in world energy production.
The simple truth is that both you and Wonderland are just mirror images of Climate change deniers, both believing in NON-SCIENCE. Both types of deniers, reject science, embrace religious fanaticism, avoid all analysis and calculations like they were the bubonic plague. And just make stuff up, ridiculous even outrageous exaggerations like your fruitcake Fukushima radioactive fish delusion.
You want references, here's a good one for you, The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full
You see how that keeps rising, over 400 ppm already, and accelerating. In spite of 25 yrs and over $6 trillion (to end of 2014) thrown down the sewer on nutty non-Hydro renewable energy scams. Do you realize how much CO2 reduction would come from $6 trillion spent on nuclear energy instead? With that much expenditure we could have replaced virtually all Coal generation, with Nuclear power, the dirtiest half of all world electricity generation -- GONE --- GONE FOREVER. Instead optimistically 7% of world electricity [there are caveats with intermittent sources that limit their TRUE emission reductions, re: Lang below] was replaced with wind, solar, geothermal, biomass & tidal total. Not even enough to prevent the growth in electricity sector CO2 emissions. Some success that is.
Here is a scientific analysis of carbon abatement cost of various tech, by Peter Lang, not some hack or no-nothing, but a power engineer:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-c...
He calculates the cost of CO2 emissions avoided for Wind energy (the #1 dump for renewable energy funding) @ $1149 per ton. Vs $22 per ton for Nuclear. So in other words for the same expense we could have avoided 50X more emissions if we had spent some $4.6 trillion (to end of 2014) on Nuclear instead of Wind.
#27
Instant-RunOff ~ Still not convinced. You fail to factor into the equation the cost of safely storing the ever increasing stockpile of radioactive wastes for thousands of years. What are you going to do with the heavy water nuclear energy produces. You can't just sweep this stuff under the carpet and forget about it. It is going to take a massive containment project to safely deal with all this mess. You aren't factoring in what it is going to cost to pay workers who haven't yet even been born with dealing with our garbage.
As far as Fukushima is concerned, that accident happened 3 years ago. It is still releasing tons of radioactive water into the ocean. According to one article I recently read it is too late to try and contain the damaged reactors with cement as was done in Chernobyl. Now the plan is to blow the reactors into the ocean with atomic bombs and remove the molten fused cores underwater with submarines. Sounds like a pretty expensive project.
We don't know what the end game in this accident is going to be. It could take several decades to gauge just how much damage we have done to ourselves and the ecosystem. What we do know is that when Chernobyl exploded, the resultant contamination claimed the lives of some 1 million people around the world and in the region; and, that's a rather conservative estimate. What we also know is that the Fukushima explosion released some 3 times as much radioactive particles into the atmosphere and the ocean than Chernobyl did. You do the math. Now put a price on the lives of one of those victims and factor that into your cost of nuclear energy.
You are suggesting we spend $4.6 Trillion on nuclear energy? Obviously that number doesn't even begin to touch on any of the hidden costs of nuclear energy. It might cover cleaning up Fukushima; but, it certainly isn't going to pay for all the lives lost, all the medical expenses, all the birth defects, and all the money lost in the seafood industry. There will be more expenses as time goes on and the casualties really start to get counted. In the article below it is estimated that total containment of this disaster could take 10 years. The damage done could continue to escalate several decades after that. I'm so sorry my friend; but, that industry is just too damn rich for my blood.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/10/11/what-are-efforts-to-contain-fukushima-2/
#28
Alice @ #18, What IRV meant at #15 was "deaths per trillion kilowatt-hours". He or she forgot proper spaces and hyphens: It should have been "deaths/trillion kW-hr", although "deaths/PW-hr" (petawatt-hour) would make more sense.
#29
DanneMarc: "...Now the plan is to blow the reactors into the ocean with atomic bombs and remove the molten fused cores underwater with submarines...."
My god man, It is alright to toke up once and awhile but you really should wait until AFTER you write a comment. There is no big problem removing the partly damaged cores, not "fused". Main thing is to just leave them there, triple contained, while the radiation level & heat level declines to a much lower level in 20 yrs or so. What's the rush. There are literally ten's of thousands of toxic industrial sites around the world that have not been decommissioned in over 50 yrs - just sitting there. They are planning the removal fo the Fuku cores, just a routine engineering problem, I could certainly do the job myself, with a good crew, wouldn't worry me in the least:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Japan-to-start-Fukushima-fuel-debri...
Man, the disinformation and BS that these anti-nuclear types come up with is just unbelievable. Anything, there is no limit to how low they will stoop to ensure Big Oil's energy hegemony.
#30
Instant-RunOff ~ Thank you for that article. However, it merely states that a plan to retrieve the melted core has not yet been finalized and probably won't until 2017. It also states that the likely procedure to retrieve the waste is underwater - just like in the theory I heard. You can bring the ocean to Muhammad or take Mohammad to the ocean; nevertheless, the principle is the same. Admittedly, using an explosive like a nuclear device to knock the entire peninsula into the ocean might be quite drastic. However, as it goes, it's a potential plan that fits the criteria in your article. Two things are certain, the core is going to have to be cooled to handle. The core is going to have to be handled remotely. In the end, it will be interesting to see exactly what plan the engineers come up with and use. I suppose, until 2021, any speculation of it is a mute point.
#31
moot
#32
IRV -- I went to google looking for Alice Friedemann and I came up with this link
http://energyskeptic.com/2015/nuclear-power-never-econ-viable-never-will...
How ironic.
In any case, all the articles I find have a serious lack of numbers. Numbers, like how much arable land there is in the US and how they measure it. How much of our land is arable for hemp that is not included in that number. How much energy is generated by an acre of switchgrass vs an acre of hemp. Incidentally, why does one include marijuana in the discussion about hemp?
Also, the San Onofre Nuclear power plant had to be closed down because it was beyond its prime. Now our PUC is duking it out with SCE for who has to pay for it. I think the thing that shut down the San Onofre nuclear power plant down was some software error.
Where are you finding those stories on the MSM that are saying negative things about nuclear energy?
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
From Screwed:
"If we are going to live in a Democracy, we need to have a healthy middle class. Thom Hartmann shows us how the ‘cons’ have wronged this country, and tells us what needs to be done to reclaim what it is to be American."
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
These corporatist politicians have fought environmental protection at every turn for thirty plus years, If we can bring change today it is probably too Damn late. The only chance I can see Is electing Bernie and putting an end to corporate pollution and extreme restructuring of or lifestyles, Even at that we have only about a 30 percent chance of avoiding the most drastic of repercussions.