Tiny federal program will save enough water to supply a city
Japan ‘plans solar panels for all new buildings’
Japan is considering a plan that would make it compulsory for all new buildings and houses to come fitted with solar panels by 2030, a business daily said Sunday.
The plan, expected to be unveiled at the upcoming G8 Summit in France, aims to show Japan’s resolve to encourage technological innovation and promote the wider use of renewable energy, the Nikkei daily said.
Japan has reeled from the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and the nuclear crisis they triggered as it battles to stabilise the crippled Fukushima Daiichi atomic power plant.
On Thursday, the first day of the two-day summit in Deauville, France, Prime Minister Naoto Kan is expected to announce Japan’s intention to continue operating nuclear plants after confirming their safety, the Nikkei said without citing sources.
But he is also expected to unveil a plan to step up efforts to push renewable energy and energy conservation.
Kan believes that the installation of solar panels would help Japan realise such goals, the Nikkei said.
He hopes that technological innovation will drastically bring down costs of solar power generation and thereby make the use of renewable energy more widespread, it said.
Fukushima “Worse Than Chernobyl” When It Comes To Oceans
The disaster in Fukushima still has Japan and the rest of the world reeling at the dangers of nuclear power plants. But experts believe that it’s the oceans that could bear the brunt of fallout from this most recent power plant failure. In fact, one expert estimates that when it comes to the oceans, Fukushima could be worse than Chernobyl.
The National Science Foundation reports, “Japanese officials recently raised the severity of the nuclear power plant incident to level 7, the highest level on the international scale and comparable only to the Chernobyl incident 25 years ago. Radionuclides in seawater have been reported from the Fukushima plant’s discharge canals, from coastal waters five to ten kilometers south of the plant, and from 30 kilometers offshore.”
Ken Buesseler, a chemical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and Henrieta Dulaiova, chemical oceanographer at University of Hawaii have each been awarded a grant from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences to study the issue further, looking in to concentrations of radionuclides in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Their work will provide insight into just how much radiation our oceans are bearing from the disaster and what that might mean for the environment.
How Does U.S. Wind Keep Growing? It’s the Big Question for WindPower
Without the support wind gets in Asia and Europe, what is this industry’s secret? The wind industry will mull the question at WindPower next week.
The nation’s biggest wind energy conclave opens Sunday in Anaheim. The last time wind threw its big party in California was 2007. There were 5,000 attendees, said Peter L. Kelley, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) Vice President for Public Affairs. The cumulative U.S. installed wind capacity that year, Kelley added, was 17 gigawatts.
A tempestuous four years later, the U.S. has a cumulative installed wind power capacity of over 41 gigawatts, wind provides 2.3 percent of the nation’s electricity and more than 20,000 people are expected in Anaheim.
The secret to wind’s growth can be found in another number Kelley emphasized: U.S. wind energy was picked to provide 35 percent of new U.S. power capacity over the four-year period after 2007, second only to natural gas. In other words, the people who keep the lights on decided that new wind — not new nuclear, not new coal — was the right buy.
And, Kelley pointed out, though shale gas deposits are making natural gas cheap right now, “nobody expects that to last, not even the people in the natural gas industry.” Plans for liquid natural gas (LNG) exports, compressed natural gas (CNG) as a heavy transport fuel, and problems with hydrofracking in the shale all suggest supply will be challenged by demand, driving prices higher.
W.H. ditches letter grades for fuel economy
The Obama administration is nixing a plan to give automobiles letter grades based on their fuel efficiency after the proposal came under attack from the auto industry, sources familiar with the agency’s decision told POLITICO.
EPA and the Transportation Department are expected to unveil their new design for fuel economy stickers next week, and it won’t involve assigning prominent letter grades “A” through “D” “” one option the administration was considering, the sources said.
Last August, the agencies proposed two alternative designs for window stickers aimed at helping consumers compare vehicles’ fuel economy. In addition to the letter grade, the administration proposed an alternative label without grades that includes prominent estimates of miles per gallon and annual fuel costs. (The alternative designs are available here.)
The auto industry blasted the letter grade proposal, and Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers CEO Dave McCurdy told several news outlets in response to the proposal, “The proposed letter grade falls short because it is imbued with schoolyard memories of passing and failing.”
Wade Newton, a spokesman for the auto group, said Friday that while he hasn’t yet seen the final rule, “We’d welcome a decision to go with the more traditional mpg labels that consumers are already familiar with.”
“The addition of a large, brightly colored letter grade may confuse the public about what is being graded, and it risks alienating the consumer who has a valid need for a vehicle that does not achieve an ‘A’ for GHG emissions,” he added.
Environmental groups are dismayed that the administration has apparently opted against the letter grades, arguing that those stickers made it easier for consumers to pick the greener option.
Military Sets its Sights on Sustainability
For all their calamitous outcomes, wars “” and the military which wages them “” have long been a source of radical new technological developments. Navies throughout history, for example, have been early adopters of new technologies and were the driving force in the transition from sail power to coal in the 19th century, and from oil to nuclear power in the post-war era.
But the military’s adoption of new technology had its greatest and most enduring impact in 1912 when Winston Churchill, then the UK’s First Lord of the Admirality, ordered the British Royal Navy to switch its fuel source from coal to oil in its new battleships. This was not only a defining moment in the history of warfare but it also led to the development of the oilfields of the Persian Gulf and the growth of the Anglo-Persain oil company, an antecedent of the modern-day BP, and put the world on a path towards growing oil dependency that has defined energy economics in recent decades.
Fast-forward 100 years and the military is again looking to switch energy sources in a shift away from hydrocarbon dependence and with a nod on renewables playing an increasingly important role. And, as with Churchill’s decision, the move is likely to have repercussions well beyond the battlefield.
Tiny Federal Program Will Save Enough Water to Supply a City
The U.S. Department of the Interior has just announced $24 million in funding for new water conservation projects in western states, some of which will also save energy, too. Proving once again that a little goes a long way, the funds will be split among 54 separate projects, and when you put them all together it adds up to more than 100,000 acre-feet per year. That’s enough to provide water for about 400,000 people. To put that into perspective, the population of mid-sized cities like Tulsa, Cleveland and Miami is a little under 400,000. As a group, the projects demonstrate that an infinitesimal amount of federal funding (compared to say, the Iraq war) can have a significant impact on the ability of the U.S. to sustain future growth – a far different approach than the one currently being advocated by certain penny wise, pound foolish legislators at both the state and federal levels.
WaterSMART Projects
The new grants are part of the Interior Department’s WaterSMART program, established in February 2010. The initiative was designed to pull together the Department’s various resources, lead by the Bureau of Reclamation, to help states deal with “drought, climate change, growing populations, energy demands and basic environmental needs [that] are stressing our finite water and energy supplies,” according to the department’s press release. Specifically, the focus is on projects that involve energy efficiency and alternative energy.
Water Conservation: Low Tech, High Tech
Many of the projects involve relatively inexpensive improvements that use conventional technology. One example is an irrigation company in Washington State, which will simply replace open ditches with pipes. By preventing seepage loss, the savings will amount to about 7,850 acre-feet of water, along with saving 4.3 million kilowatt hours of electricity due to reduced demand on pumped water. As an example of the high tech approach, an irrigation district in California will install use online GIS to save an estimated 11,500 acre-feet annually.
The U.S. Department of the Interior has just announced $24 million in funding for new water conservation projects in western states, some of which will also save energy, too. Proving once again that a little goes a long way, the funds will be split among 54 separate projects, and when you put them all together it adds up to more than 100,000 acre-feet per year. That’s enough to provide water for about 400,000 people. To put that into perspective, the population of mid-sized cities like Tulsa, Cleveland and Miami is a little under 400,000. As a group, the projects demonstrate that an infinitesimal amount of federal funding (compared to say, the Iraq war) can have a significant impact on the ability of the U.S. to sustain future growth – a far different approach than the one currently being advocated by certain penny wise, pound foolish legislators at both the state and federal levels.
WaterSMART Projects
The new grants are part of the Interior Department’s WaterSMART program, established in February 2010. The initiative was designed to pull together the Department’s various resources, lead by the Bureau of Reclamation, to help states deal with “drought, climate change, growing populations, energy demands and basic environmental needs [that] are stressing our finite water and energy supplies,” according to the department’s press release. Specifically, the focus is on projects that involve energy efficiency and alternative energy.
Water Conservation: Low Tech, High Tech
Many of the projects involve relatively inexpensive improvements that use conventional technology. One example is an irrigation company in Washington State, which will simply replace open ditches with pipes. By preventing seepage loss, the savings will amount to about 7,850 acre-feet of water, along with saving 4.3 million kilowatt hours of electricity due to reduced demand on pumped water. As an example of the high tech approach, an irrigation district in California will install use online GIS to save an estimated 11,500 acre-feet annually.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tlY)
The U.S. Department of the Interior has just announced $24 million in funding for new water conservation projects in western states, some of which will also save energy, too. Proving once again that a little goes a long way, the funds will be split among 54 separate projects, and when you put them all together it adds up to more than 100,000 acre-feet per year. That’s enough to provide water for about 400,000 people. To put that into perspective, the population of mid-sized cities like Tulsa, Cleveland and Miami is a little under 400,000. As a group, the projects demonstrate that an infinitesimal amount of federal funding (compared to say, the Iraq war) can have a significant impact on the ability of the U.S. to sustain future growth – a far different approach than the one currently being advocated by certain penny wise, pound foolish legislators at both the state and federal levels.
WaterSMART Projects
The new grants are part of the Interior Department’s WaterSMART program, established in February 2010. The initiative was designed to pull together the Department’s various resources, lead by the Bureau of Reclamation, to help states deal with “drought, climate change, growing populations, energy demands and basic environmental needs [that] are stressing our finite water and energy supplies,” according to the department’s press release. Specifically, the focus is on projects that involve energy efficiency and alternative energy.
Water Conservation: Low Tech, High Tech
Many of the projects involve relatively inexpensive improvements that use conventional technology. One example is an irrigation company in Washington State, which will simply replace open ditches with pipes. By preventing seepage loss, the savings will amount to about 7,850 acre-feet of water, along with saving 4.3 million kilowatt hours of electricity due to reduced demand on pumped water. As an example of the high tech approach, an irrigation district in California will install use online GIS to save an estimated 11,500 acre-feet annually.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/12tlY)
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
What possible reason do the Japanese have for waiting until 2030 to require solar on new construction? There’s going to be a huge amount of new construction starting NOW, and all of it should have solar!
I live in San Francisco which is about as close as you can get to the stricken Japanese nuclear plant on the continental United States and my main concern with the current state of events unfolding at Fukushima is the effect that this massive radiation leak will have on California’s agricultural lands. As we all know from the hydrolic cycle, ocean water evaporates, and once it does it eventually migrates over land and precipitates. Only now it’s going to be highly radioactive water, and it will not only be pouring down on our major urban centers, but also on our small rural communities, our organic cropland and snow packs. What good is an organic certification if the fruits and vegetables that many Northern Californians consume is contaminated with radioactive isotopes?
About a decade back itself I saw in Japan PV on roof tops and on shades.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Putting something off for even a few years is a favourite tactic to bury an initiative. Delaying it until 2030 is the Japanese elite’s version of what we Austrayans call ‘The two-fingered salute’.
Jade@2
The radio-nucleotides released in Japan are heavy and don’t evaporate with water. They were not thrown high into the atmosphere as they were from Chernobyl. So radioactive contamination of California agriculture from Fukushima is extremely unlikely.
Maybe the Japanese will discover that a few simple standards lower the cost of installing PV everywhere.
Maybe the Japanese will discover that if you use the DC from PV directly for valuable DC devices like electronics, LED lighting, and charging batteries, you lower the cost again.
Maybe the Japanese will discover that PV works very well with efficiency and conservation — that a little not only goes a long way, it goes all the way. For most households, PV is all you need.
Maybe we will discover those things, too.
@5, Mark Shapiro says:
Maybe the Japanese will discover that PV works very well with efficiency and conservation — that a little not only goes a long way, it goes all the way. For most households, PV is all you need.
——————————————————————————
I took a crash course in solar photo-voltaic technology earlier this year, and looked up various bits of relevant data in the process.
On the one hand, I read a heartwarming story about an African woman whose life was transformed for the better by a single small solar panel (only 90 W, IIRC). Living in a village with no electricity, she nevertheless had a small business, and a cellphone which was the vital communications link that allowed her to speak to her clients.
Before going solar, she had to walk for an hour, hire a motorcycle taxi, drive for two hours, drop her cellphone off in the nearest town with electricity to have it recharged, and repeat the whole ordeal two days later to pick up her cellphone.
After installing the solar panel, she not only saved six hours of travel time each week as well as the cost of the taxi and the charging service, she also gained the ability to charge her neighbours cellphones – and to be paid by them for the service. She also gained an LED light in her hut, got rid of her kerosene lamp and recurring cost of purchasing kerosine, and made her toddler’s life safer as the hot and dangerous kerosene lamp was no longer around to endanger the child.
On the flip side of that coin, I read about a Southern California solar company that is pushing various roughly 1kW solar systems, inluding a “solar gazebo” that puts out 1 kW in direct sunlight at noon on the equator. It costs $10,000.
In other words, that solar gazebo costs ten grand in US dollars, and in the very best of circumstances puts out barely enough power to run one single hand-held hairdryer.
Remember that peak sunlight only lasts a few hours, the gazebo does not track the path of the sun across the sky, there are cloudy days, there is less sun in winter, and California is not on the equator. Typically, all these factors combine to reduce the AVERAGE output of a solar panel by roughly an order of magnitude. So a more accurate assessment is that $10,000 USD will get you an annually averaged 100 watts or so round the clock.
In other words, it would cost you $100,000 USD worth of “Solar Gazebo’s” if you wanted to make enough electricity from solar panels to run that hairdryer round the clock. (That’s 24 kwh/day).
You can interpret that last statement in various ways. One way is that solar power is ridiculously expensive compared to (planet-destroying) conventional power for people in developed countries like the USA. Another way to see it is that people in those same developed countries use a ridiculous amount of power to support their way of life.
Either way, the obvious conclusion is that solar power is completely unable to meet most people’s energy expectations in contemporary America. Costs are way too high, and power output way too low. And that’s without even considering energy used for transportation.
In order to switch to solar in developed countries, it would seem that at least one of two big changes have to happen: either the cost of solar power needs to fall by an order of magnitude, or the average persons energy use needs to fall by a similar amount.
It’s true that larger solar systems are a bit cheaper per watt, say $7/watt instead of $10/watt. It’s also true that a small and moderately energy-efficient house can consume less average power than that hairdryer – say 10 kW hr/day. At $7 per watt of installed capacity, and an average power of one-tenth of that watt, it would cost you roughly $30,000 to power that home from solar.
I’m one of millions of people who would like to install solar on my home, but I simply can’t swing that $30,000 cost. (My home being an old and poorly insulated one, my annual average energy consumption is higher than 10 kwh/day, so it would actually cost me even more.)
Hell and high water, here we come! Alligators at the north pole, here we come!
-Gnobuddy
I should add that the costs of $10/watt and $7/watt which I mentioned in my previous post include not only the raw solar panels, but also the cost of the associated inverters and other bits of expensive electronics needed to tie a solar panel into the AC power grid.
I did not even touch on the huge additional cost of storage batteries – if you want to be fully self-sufficient with solar power, this is an unavoidable additional expense. This is why grid-tied solar (a mix of solar panels and conventional power from an electric utility) is far more common today.
Mark Shapiro’s point – using the DC directly is cheaper and more efficient – is an excellent one as far as engineering efficiency goes. But we have a couple of centuries worth of already existing 120 V 60 Hz A.C. equipment to deal with, and that is not so easy to wish away. If you use a grid-tied system, you also have to deal with the fact that the grid is going to be 120 V A.C. for the foreseeable future.
There’s also the fact that most of our electronics devices don’t actually work at the same DC voltage that a string of solar panels might happen to put out. So you still need a DC-DC converter to power most electronic devices from a solar panel.
-Gnobuddy
NOAA has created a webpage for the powerful tornado that hit Joplin Missouri:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html
The thing about letter grades is that efficiency standards change with technology. What might be an A today would be a C 10 years down the road. Sounds like it’ll confuse people in the future.
Gnobuddy -
The Africa story is instructive. It shows how cost-effective — hugely cost-effective — PV is at small scales. That is key for billions of poor people around the world. It is a simple result of econ 101: the theory of marginal utility. The first few KWH are the most valuable ones.
Does the PV gazebo teach us as much, or is it just some toy? Ignore it.
The cost of PV panels is already under $2/Watt. THe question — the only question — is how do you bring that low cost to more people? One answer is standardization, so that it is easy and cheap and expected to put PV on every roof. Imagine PV roofing that is as standard and ubiquitous as a 2 x 4. That’s the goal.
The DC standard isn’t meant to replace the 20th century installed base. Only new stuff. Like the $ billions in electronic goods that are made and sold every day. And all new LED lighting.
Your point about different DC voltages is well-taken. It is critical to choose the right voltage (or voltages).
Cost of batteries is not a worry. PV can be grid-tied or complemented with cogeneration. Let the markets decide what’s best for each case, each free individual!
And remember your own most important point. For small scale users like your African friend, PV is already a huge winner, providing clean DC power where it provides huge value.
Don’t let gazebos and hair dryers bother you too much. And thanks for thinking about it all so clearly!
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_18108806
Drought record: El Paso hits 110 days without rain
by Alex Hinojosa \ El Paso Times
Posted: 05/23/2011 11:20:18 AM MDT
ABC Radio has just reported that Tepco has been pushed into reporting that meltdown also ocurred at Fukushima reactors 2 and 3, not just at 1, ME
Gnobuddy
Note that 1 KW capacity means it produces 1000 J/second. (A watt is a joule second. KWH are about equivalent to joules except how you calculate it). In one hour (3600 seconds), it would produce 3600000 WH or 3600 kwh. It would be more than enough to run a hair dryer. Multiply that by 24 hours (then 14% since PV panels tend to generate at that capacity) = 12096 kwh or 12.1 mgh (megawatt hours). That is sufficient to run your house from what I know. That being said, be skeptical about 1 KW PV panels. The panel either has some huge technological breakthrough we’ve never heard of before or is huge. A roughly 18″ by 24″ panel was 75 W. To be 1000 W, it’d need dimensions of 76″ by 76″. Plus $10 a watt is pricey. Module costs are in the $1-$2 range and overall installation costs are in the $3-$4 range. PS 10 kwh per day is very low. Normally it takes 1 MW to supply 300 homes. So each home uses 3.3 W which is 288 kwh per day. You should share some tips of how you use such little energy.
Tepco confirms meltdowns at 2 more Fukushima reactors
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/japan-tepco-reactors-idUSL3E7GO04420110524
Threatened Pacific Island Nation makes legal history by challenging European carbon emitter
New York, 23 May 2011 — The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) has made legal history by challenging the development of one of Europe’s largest coal-fired power stations, opening the door for climate-stricken nations to use international law to take action against major carbon emitters that pose a significant risk to their survival.
The landmark legal paper, written by FSM, Greenpeace and the Environmental Law Service, and presented today at the Threatened Island Nations Climate Conference in New York’s Columbia University, offers hope to vulnerable countries on the frontline of climate impacts. FSM is one of many nation states experiencing environmental disasters, such as flooding, tidal surges and destruction of food crops, which are already exacerbated by climate change.
continue reading at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Threatened-Pacific-Island-Nation-makes-legal-history-by-challenging-European-carbon-emitter/
Are tornadoes more common because of climate change?
Number of tornadoes recorded appears to have increased significantly, but the real answer is no one really knows
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/24/tornadoes-more-common-climate-change
Vast swathe of US put on thunderstorm alert
Obama tells people to heed warnings; says America will do ‘absolutely everything we can’ to help tornado-hit Missouri http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43147795/ns/weather/
Ethanol subsidy phaseout is necessary, Pawlenty says
“The truth about federal energy subsidies, including federal subsidies for ethanol, is that they have to be phased out,” Pawlenty said in Des Moines on Monday as he announced his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. “We need to do it gradually. We need to do it fairly. But we need to do it.”
“Governor Pawlenty further pointed out that energy incentive reforms must be across the board,” Wendland said. “Iowans look forward to Governor Pawlenty further detailing his plans to ‘phase out’ petroleum subsidies, perhaps in a speech in Houston, Texas.”
Alex Conant, a spokesman for Pawlenty, said the campaign will release a comprehensive energy plan later this summer. He declined to specify how far in cutting energy subsidies the former governor is willing to go.
Pawlenty’s stand is similar to those of some other GOP presidential candidates, including Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is a longtime opponent of federal agriculture subsidies, and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer. Roemer earlier this year said he thought his stand against ethanol makes it all but impossible for his candidacy to do well in Iowa.
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted at stops in Iowa last week that he supported ethanol subsidies as early as 1984. Gingrich told Iowa crowds that he would rather have money going to farmers and others in the United States who produce biofuels than to unstable regimes in the Middle East. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110524/BUSINESS01/105240333
Speaking from experience, I have a nominal 5kw peak solar array, about 32 m2 which has been supplying an average of 18 kwhr per day here in Tasmania (42 deg south) which meets my average daily load over the year. My average winter daily load is 23 kwhr, summer daily load about 15 kwhr. I have a solar hot water system and always use a clothes line, but apart from that, the house is all electric: heating, hot water boosting when needed and cooking, as well as computers, lights, etc. The house is very well insulated and we are careful turning off lights and such, but certainly not cold or doing without.
The system cost $19,000(AUD) installed. There was about $4,000 in government ‘credits’ so without subsidy the cost would have been $23,000. Since then PV panel prices have come down. With expected power prices, I expect to save the cost of the panels in about 12-15 years. I’m happy.
Ziyu says:
May 23, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Gnobuddy
Note that 1 KW capacity means it produces 1000 J/second. (A watt is a joule second. KWH are about equivalent to joules except how you calculate it). In one hour (3600 seconds), it would produce 3600000 WH or 3600 kwh.
Sorry, Ziyu, but that’s just wrong. A 1 KW panel produces 1000J/sec, like you say, but 1 KWH = 1000 W/KW * 3600 seconds/hr = 3,600,000 watt-seconds in an hour.
A 1 KW panel will produce a KW-second every second, a KW-hour every hour. KW is the rate of electrical production (output per unit time) and a joule or a KWH is an amount of energy.
A 1 KW panel produces, at best, 1 KWH per hour.
Fukushima “worse than Chernobyl” for oceans
And as Chernobyl had ZERO measurable effect on the oceans that would be… Drum roll… Zero?!?!
What should be the headline – One coal plant is probably worse on the oceans than Chernobyl and Fukushima. As a matter of fact I think it woudl be good to crunch the numbers for a Coal Plantś lifetime and see how much toxins like Mercury and GGs are released.
John Tucker #22, it’s a losing fight old boy. Nobody is interested in hearing the advantages of strychnine in preference to cyanide as a method for self-destruction. What they want is ambrosia, in other words renewable energy generation without either species of shite, black or brown.
>Chernobyl had ZERO measurable effect on the oceans . . .
Right, one devastated the land and one devastated the oceans and nobody wants another.
23 the problem is of course, that no such animal yet exists. Even the wonderful article here on geothermal solutions is probably years away from acceptance and functional reality. If not decades.
The power grid has no nodes for storage and basically very little infrastructure for feeding back and managing power.
Without that in place the sum result is more FF use. Its how it worked 30 years ago and how it works now.
Already the losing argument seems to be the one for the best environmental solution:
Coal demand boost as generators turn away from nuclear
Essentially base load power is still a long-term choice between nuclear and coal across much of the globe, and the answer to this question will be critical to the longer-term outlook for the coal market. Most experts agree that at the very least the disaster will add to the costs of nuclear power through tougher safety precautions, which could tip the economics in favour of coal.
( http://www.ifandp.com/article/0011260.html )
Brazilian Mining Giant Vale Starts Coal Production In Moatize, Mozambique ( http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=588686 )
Unfortunately environmental destruction is the reality of the illogical anti nuke movement. The window for experimentation and untried solutions to combat environmental degradation has long, long since passed.
@ Bill W #1:
I had the same thought…why wait until 2030?
I tend to agree with Mulga on this one. It gives enough leeway to “forget” about it further down the road, with out making any real commitment now. I’m sure that there are also that would attack the idea of starting now due to Japan’s economy, even though such a policy would probably help the economy in the long run, just like in the USA.
————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Jade in San Francisco @ #2 said:
Sarah @ #5 said:
While I understand your concern Jade, Sarah is essentially correct. There has been some very small levels of radiation detected in California that seems to be due to the reactor leaks in Japan, but fortunately is is far below the safe limits and just barely above background levels. What has me more concerned is the possibility of contaminated fish/seafood. Especially since last I read there didn’t seem to be an effort to systematically test fish and other seafood for such contamination.
Is There Radiation in Your Seafood?
@ Mark G #10:
A good point, perhaps a simple solution would be to add a number at the end of the letter to help differentiate each time the standards are re-evaluated. Such as A1 vs. A5, so that people can compare within the same standard levels.
Of course the conventional measurements should also be kept for a more detailed evaluation while the letter grade would make it simpler to make a more informal evaluation
John Tucker #25:
Yet strangely there is little evidence for this, where is the big rush for coal after Fukushima? All of the planed plants seem to have been in the planning stage from long beforehand.
Never mind the problem with claiming that geothermal is years away is that it takes at least several years just to build a single nuke plant, and it’s far more expensive to build the nuclear plants. You also are ignoring other ways to make up the difference such as smart grids and efficiency improvements which are do-able right now.
Odd though isn’t it… how funding for nuclear almost always takes funding away from renewable energy (such as geothermal)? Isn’t also odd how the biggest supporters for nuclear are also the same people that are the biggest supporters of fossil fuels too?
Well from plants canceled after Three Mile Island ( where no member of the public received significant radiation exposure ) about 100 percent became coal. Very dirty coal I might add. After that I just have to go with what is practical now, as not only the distribution system but the other power generation sources themselves are not even designed and built – or in some cases are basically just theory.
But here we go, some lighthearted argument stated better than I can:
( http://youtu.be/oBFpm9UHX-0 )