Clean Energy In Ten Years

Not gonna happen Jack,

What do they/you suggest to fuel for our enormous fleet of vehicles which burn fossil fuels.

"And it’s happening much faster than was predicted just a few years ago."

Propaganda nothing more the planet's temperature has been moderating for the last ten years...They must have missed that little FACT!

I'm suprised that you are promoting the same people who promote carbon taxes Jack, these people don't care what the facts are as long as they can figure out a way to scare the public into going along with their plan.

The environment is being destroyed by toxic chemicals, carbon and corporate greed. We need to invest in clean energy now and stop supporting blood for oil wars.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this but we didn't get alot of oil out of Iraq and absolutely no oil out of Afghanistan. I know it might be fun to think about both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars of foreign aggression perpetrated to obtain oil but the cold hard facts of the matter is they weren't. In fact we have spent considerably more moeny fighting these wars than we could ever expect to extract from them by collecting petroleum from their oil fields (Iraq).

The pipeline war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is about nothing but controlling more energy, just like the attempt to take over the Middle East. It failed with the shah and it will fail now.

So you support these people who would saddle our society with a carbon tax?

I thought I read you post that a carbon tax was nothing more than a sham?

This petition you promote will be used to push a carbon tax onto the american people.

People like AlGore will become even richer and polute even more if that happens.

First Solar Passes $1 Per Watt Industry Milestone ($1/watt is important because it represents the cost of electricity produced by coal)

First Solar Produces 1 Gigawatt of Clean Solar Electricity

"It took the Company more than six years to produce its first 500 megawatts (MW) and eight months to produce its second, creating today’s 1GW total. By the end of this year, the Company has announced it will have the capacity to produce more than 1GW per year— the equivalent of an average-sized nuclear power plant.

'This volume allows us to rapidly reduce manufacturing costs, thereby furthering our mission of making solar power an affordable alternative to conventional energy sources,' said Bruce Sohn, First Solar president."

I don't know if the U.S. can become totally or even mostly powered by renewable energy in ten years, but failing to try comes from nothing but vested interests, negligence, ignorance, laziness and cynicism.

Nanosolar is hiring.

Rising ocean temperatures near worst-case predictions

"but failing to try comes from nothing but vested interests, negligence, ignorance, laziness and cynicism."

Nonsense Steve,

Such a plan can not be attained, all one needs to do is just take a look at their plan, or rather the numbers they have put up to try and fool the people.

They suggest that wind can supply 27% of our electricity in ten years, to go from todays wind power generation of less than 1% to 27% in ten years is just not reasonable.

DOE

To suggest that we can grow solar from about a 5th of a percent to 13 percent of our electricity in ten years, again not reasonable.

Sorry guys it just aint going to work and this AlGore co-op is nothin more than a sham.

Here's the sham...

 ...and here

...and here

Alternative analysis to your DOE link above. It's a matter of political will - not technology, not economics. I repeat: "but failing to try (to completely be powered by renewable energy in ten years) comes from nothing but vested interests, negligence, ignorance, laziness and cynicism."

Your right Steve and that's why I say we are going to drown in our own muck and when it comes time to make the criminals pay for what they are doing the rule of law will be swept under the rug again.

The public needs to stop allowing itself to be polarized and start coming together for the interests of good for all. Start doing its own independent thinking and pay attention to the smog that floats a few feet above their heads.

The goal should be to free ourselves from fossil fuels ASAP. We can recylce all the old oil burning dinosaurs and use them for beer cans.

There is a way to accomplish this, but as usual Americans will consider the medicine far more unpalatable than the current sickness aflicting this nation in the form of fossil fuel dependence. The solution I am speacking is CLEAN, SAFE, NUCLEAR ENERGY!

France currently obtains 75% of its domestic energy needs from its nuclear power program.

France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. 

France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.

France's decision to launch a large nuclear program dates back to 1973 and the events in the Middle East that they refer to as the "oil shock." The quadrupling of the price of oil by OPEC nations was indeed a shock for France because at that time most of its electricity came from oil burning plants. France had and still has very few natural energy resources. It has no oil, no gas and her coal resources are very poor and virtually exhausted.

French policy makers saw only one way for France to achieve energy independence: nuclear energy, a source of energy so compact that a few pounds of fissionable uranium is all the fuel needed to run a big city for a year. Plans were drawn up to introduce the most comprehensive national nuclear energy program in history. Over the next 15 years France installed 56 nuclear reactors, satisfying its power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries.

This program can be copied in the United States but it must be led by the federal government instead of private enterprise. We can obtain true energy independence for centuries to come.

While nuclear power would be a solution, the problems associated with it need to be addressed first. A strong and effective regulatory regime needs to be set up for the building and operating of such plants. An infrastructure for processing and storage of spent radioactive fuel is needed as well. Unfortunately, American business often takes a lacksadaisical attitude toward these ends in pursuit of profit.

I have no problem with nuclear energy. It has it's dangers but as long as it is done right with plenty of oversight I'm for it.

James that has always been the problem American business, cutting corners to increase profits. That is why we need to keep a close eye on them. Private business has increased the cost of health care to the point where it is unaffordable to a great many people, all in the name of ever increasing profits. Businesses cannot be trusted because greed is their creed.

Nuclear power is not an option because government has already proven that it is not a reliable watchdog.

Yeah and even if they are reliable watchdogs in the beginning  the industry and their lobbyist will immediately start to work on taking the teeth out of oversight and make it voluntary. We can trust them right.

"The solution I am speacking is CLEAN, SAFE, NUCLEAR ENERGY!"

Aside from all of the risks associated with nuclear energy, there simply is no need. I linked above references to First Solar, which has cracked the $1/watt competitive (with coal) mark, and is now able to produce a gigawatt of solar energy capacity per year, which is the same as an average nuclear plant. Solar is quicker to deploy, cheaper, and cleaner. There is absolutely no need (other than vested interest) nuclear.

Believe it or not nuclear energy is actually cleaner and safer than solar power or wind power. Don't believe than read these facts.

According to one viewpoint of reports offering the comparison between wind versus nuclear energy, there has not been one single injury to a nuclear plant worker in all its 104 power plants and 40 years of service in the United States... not one! The Wind Turbine Industry on the other hand, has quite a treacherous track record as you can see by the summary below:

Summary of Wind Turbine Incidents (December 2008):

• 41 Worker Fatalities, 16 Public- Includes falling from turbine towers and transporting turbines on the highway.
• 39 Incidents of Blade Failure- Failed blades have been known to travel over a quarter mile, killing any unfortunate bystanders within its path of destruction.
• 110 Incidents of Fire- When a wind turbine fire occurs, local fire departments can do little but watch due to the 30-story height of these turbine units. The falling debris are then carried across the distance and cause new fires.
• 60 Incidents of Structural Failure- As turbines become more prevalent, these breakages will become more common in public areas, thereby causing more deaths and dismemberment's from falling debris.

• 24 incidents of "hurling ice"- Ice forms on these giant blades and is reportedly hurled at deathly speeds in all directions. Author reports that some 880 ice incidents of this nature have occurred over Germany's 13-years of harnessing wind power.

Every Treehugger worth their roots loves solar power. After the (not always low) upfront costs are paid back you get free power from the sun, without emitting greenhouse gases or supporting continued extraction of fossil fuels. What's not to like, right? Well, according to a new report released by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition at the manufacturing and disposal stage of those über-green solar panels' life there's a whole bunch not to like, and little oversight to boot. This is what report recommends be done to remedy the situation and why it need be done in the first place:

Little Oversight Exists Currently
The report says that little attention is currently paid to the environmental and health costs of the rapidly expanding solar industry; that "most widely used solar PV panels are based on materials and processes from the microelectronics industry" which could cause an avalanche of e-waste at the end of their productive lifetime of 20-25 years; and that many of the newest panels with higher rates of efficiency use "extremely toxic materials with unknown health and environmental risks."

A further problem is that some panels are manufactured in countries with lax environmental policies, or at least enforcement of those policies. China is cited as an example:

In March 2008, the Washington Post reported that at least one plant in China's Henan province is regularly dumping extremely toxic silicon tetrachloride (a corrosive and toxic waste product of polysilicon manufacturing) on nearby farmland. [...] Silicon tetrachloride makes the soil too acidic for plants, causes severe irritation to living tissues, and is highly toxic when ingested of inhaled.

Is Nuclear Power Sustainable?

Nuclear Power, which is derived from the fission of uranium, plutonium, or thorium, is sustainable in that we have hundreds to thousands of years of usable uranium available. Although, I imagine that number might diminish over the years as demand increased (especially if we were to adopt nuclear as our primary power source). I should note that nuclear energy is not a renewable energy source...it's just that there's a lot of it.

Is Nuclear Power Clean?

Nuclear power, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, is quite clean. It does not directly emit any greenhouse gases. However, the nuclear fuel cycle produces them indirectly, but at a drastically slower rate than fossil fuel sources.

Much of the debate over nuclear power has surrounded waste disposal. In the U.S. the solution has been to box it up and store it beneath the state of Nevada. This waste ranges from high-level to low-level waste, high-level being the stuff we all hear about, and low-level being clothes, gloves, materials used in the power plants, and other items exposed to radiation. Uranium can be reprocessed (for the plutonium) and used as a fuel in the plant itself. However, it is this reprocessing that facilitates the making of nuclear bombs.

How does Solar Compare to Nuclear Power?

Solar and Nuclear power each have their advantages. Although, at this time nuclear power would probably run away with the trophy if not for the environmental and political holdups. Here are their respective advantages, as I see them:

• Nuclear
  • would have an easier transition to a centralized grid system.already provides a good portion of our electricity
  • does not emit greenhouse gases
  • plenty of resource available
  • presently cheaper than solar power

"I repeat::

Steve,

You can repeat it until you are blue in the face, it won't make it any more attainable, it will still be folly and a waste of money to try from that perspective.

Your "alternative analysis" is propaganda, nothing more. 

To the blind everything is a dark plot.

"To the blind everything is a dark plot."

Coming from the plotmaster....Now that's funny! LOL!

Besides as I posted before, these people are the ones who are pushing Carbon Tax and Trade, something you have vehemently opposed in prior posts, but now you support them.

Now who is it who is blind?

They are bad when they talk about carbon tax and trade but they are NOT bad as long as they don't mention it?

lemmings?

That's right Dan the politically correct blind that cuts their own throat every time they show how they have lost the ability to be free thinking.

What do you think your going to get from Exxon besides a kick in the ass for your effort?

That list of dead scientists is just not doing you justice.

That almost made sense Jack, almost.

Your post from my article Jack,

"Very good post Dan.
Cap and trade has been from the start just a program to put the cost of environmental pollution onto the public and what good does it do to tell the oil and coal burners they have to clean up their act when their is no technology to make it happen?"

It would seem that by your support for this AlGore organization that you now support Cap and Trade, and it's effect of transfering the costs of fossil fuel poluting from the fossil fuel burners onto the public.

There is all kinds of blind Jack and it does not just effect everybody else.

"Your 'alternative analysis' is propaganda, nothing more."

Sorry, but your proclamations are not up to the facts. Alternate sets of facts represent different paths. We decide which path to take. Unfortunately, you favor the most risky, dangerous and polluting sources.

"Sorry, but your proclamations are not up to the facts. Alternate sets of facts represent different paths."

Steve,

Unless you can present how this can be accomplished in ten years you can not show it to be a valid choice, anything but propaganda.

The use of these name collected will be put forth as supporting a carbon tax.....because there is no other way to move the alternative energy agenda ahead quick enough to reach the goal in ten years, the AlGorians will say.

Josh,

You are correct nuclear must be a part of the solution as must all forms of energy including fossil fuels.

As Pickens says whatever energy we can produce from our own sources must be developed, oil, gas, nuclear, wind. solar and anything else we can develop we must use.

We must stop sending billions of dollars every year to other countries.

Aside from all of the risks associated with nuclear energy, there simply is no need. I linked above references to First Solar, which has cracked the $1/watt competitive (with coal) mark, and is now able to produce a gigawatt of solar energy capacity per year, which is the same as an average nuclear plant. Solar is quicker to deploy, cheaper, and cleaner. There is absolutely no need (other than vested interest) new nuclear plants.

"We must stop sending billions of dollars every year to other countries."

We agree on something!!! Mark it!!!

We have been making poor energy decisions for decades. It is time (past time) that we begin making energy decisions with a view to long-term sustainability. No need to pursue short-term, band-aid non-solutions, like "clean coal" (not developed yet) or new nuclear plants (not built yet). Solar is quicker to deploy, cheaper, and cleaner.

You are correct Steve it is a great solar milestone but for you to claim that nuclear is not needed ignores the fact that the sun only shines part of the time and the wind does not always blow, that the solar milestone accomplished is not so much of a milestone in northern regions and areas that get cloudy much of the winter.

But this is a discussion that we have had many times, you are welcome to your opinion, I will rely on fact.

Nuclear is safe that is a fact. nuclear will produce energy 24/7 where solar and wind is limited.

"...the sun only shines part of the time and the wind does not always blow...."

As we have discussed this many times, you are aware this is not the problem that you would have people believe. And your "opinion" that nuclear is safe - well, again I invite you to store the waste in your neighborhood - not mine.

No Steve,

I am aware that you would have people believe that technology is advanced further than it actually has to make up for those shortcomings. It will get there someday but it is not there now nor in the near furture.

If you wish to give examples of the technology that you beleive makes solar viable 24/7 I will show you where you are wrong, again.

Furthermore there are plenty of places to safely dispose of nuclear waste. The first place I would advise would be nuclear test sites, there are many of these across the United States. Since these locations are already radioactive and have been specifically selected because of their remoteness to large population centers and natural resources they are a superb location to store spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials.

Hey Josh,

Check out my group the nuclear world

Yeah, Josh, go check out Dan's group, the nuclear world - from the appearance of your icon, you're appropriately dressed for it.

LOL!