Going Green Doesn’t mean going Nuclear or “Clean Coal”
Apparently someone else knows that too:
The Senate version of the bill had contained $4.6 billion for the research and development of carbon-capture-and-sequestration technologies for coal-fired power plants and $50 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, but that funding appears to have been dropped entirely, to the delight of enviros.
“This is a huge win, for our planet and for taxpayers who want stimulus funds to be invested wisely,” said Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder. “The bailout in question would have thrilled nuclear industry lobbyists but done virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. Congressional leaders did the right thing and prevented waste by removing this bailout.”
Seems to me that these guys don’t want to be like Europe right? Well, wouldn’t more Nuclear power put us right up there with France? I don’t know about you, but does the sight of a 200 foot tall, 200 foot wide, cooling tower out your back yard give your house that bump in value like say….a lake does?
Forget the cooling tower. What is important is can you see Alaska from your back yard. 😉
Like a lot of people who live east of Middletown, I happen to have a 200 foot tall, 200 foot wide, cooling tower in my back yard which I try not to think about, so thanks.
In terms of nuclear energy, we ought to invest more research and development into safe, non-weaponizeable thorium reactors. I support the construction of nuclear power plants ONLY in association with closing down existing coal plants, and that produces little net increase in jobs (hence does not belong in stimulus).
As for so-called “Clean Coal”, all such efforts MUST be directed towards reducing emissions at existing plants, *not* building new ones.
Jason,
You just made me piss my pants a little. That was funny.
“I don’t know about you, but does the sight of a 200 foot tall, 200 foot wide, cooling tower out your back yard give your house that bump in value like say….a lake does?”
I am with you on this one ! I wonder how many homes we can equip with solar for the cost of construction and maintenance of a nuclear power plant ?
Even “clean” coal will still have to be extracted out the ground, at a huge environmental cost. Nuclear reactors still have the waste problems. I hope we’ll invest in more environmentally friendly energy sources.
Dropping that shows the insanity of the left. There is no solution to our power woes without Nuclear power.
There hasnt been a nuclear power plant built in 30 years, cuz Wall Street wouldnt give them the loans for that horrible unsafe industry.
What irony that would be to have “the public’s funds given away to build the nuclear power plants the citizens have been fighting against”.
Striking the nuclear industry was a very smart move, our children will be proud.
Coal is another matter. There is plenty of it so money should be invested into finding a process that creates clean coal. Doesnt matter anyway most of the coal in this country is going to Germany. The biggest bituminous coalmines are in Western Pa, WVA, Ky, and all that coal goes straight to Germany.
Unsafe industry? We have more Nuclear power plants than anyone in the world if you count civilian and a military. How many fatalities have we had in the last 50 years? 0–compare that to thousands for coal (bad air), accidents at oil refineries, and natural gas accidents. It doesn’t even kill birds. Can you at least base some opinion on facts?
Liz does have a point on why power plants don’t get built here — and that is investors won’t go near them without a government guarantee or subsidy. If they were really such a bang up idea or investment, you’d think that would happen without government intervention.
I mean, look how well that worked for mortgage derivatives.
Step out of the box, folks — Think Geothermal Energy!
Geothermal energy exists right under your feet — “terra firma”. Heat exchange with the natural ground is safer than enhanced manipulation of geologic material such as uranium and coal, whose by-products generate even more environmentally hazardous material to dispose, whereas the installation of water-based residential/commercial geothermal systems don’t produce any hazardous materials. Geothermal energy systems use electricity from an outside source, but it also produces even more energy, thereby adding value to your home or commercial building by lowering your fossil fuel and possibly non-fossil fuel costs.
I know that I still need to do some research on
Geothermal Energy. I am just excited as I just returned from the Maryland Delaware Water Well Drillers Association Conference and two weeks ago from the Pennsylvania Ground Water Association Conference. Both non-profit organizations had extensive geothermal presentations this year. PGWA has had outdoor summer workshops for drillers.
Geothermal is the way to go! I am still new at this game, so I will leave a few links. Included in the 2008 bailout are Federal tax credits retroactive to January 2008 for the installation of residential and commercial geothermal systems.
For a good comparison of different energy sources/technologies or general set-up of geothermal systems, check out the following links:
Geothermal National and International Initiatives Inc. : http://www.geo-nii.org
National Ground Water Association: http://www.ngwa.org
Nuclear Power Plants can not be built without massive Government subsidies. The waste problem can not be solved without $Billions for future generations to pay for it. Wallstreet wont touch it !! Insurance Companies wont touch.
It took dozens of Organizations and thousands of letters to get the $50 billion for nuclear out of the stimulus package.
This latest victory came Wednesday, February 11, as a top-level Congressional conference committee ironed out the last details of the Obama stimulus package. The loan guarantee scam was slipped into the Senate version by Republican Bob Bennett (R-UT) in cooperation with Democrat Tom Carper (D-DE).
But in the end it did not fly. The opposistion was too much, the people won this one. What is Tom Carper thinkink ? I wonder
First, most nuclear plants don’t have cooling towers which are also common to coal burning plants as well. This change of provision isn’t a huge setback for the nuclear industry. This meaning of this provision was twisted badly by the likes of “friends of the earth” and other groups. They made it seem like 50 billion was going out the door. Nothing is further from the truth. If all goes well and the plant goes up, the taxpayer doesn’t pay a dime and the companies who ask for the loan guarantee must put up a 2 billion dollar deductible. In the 43 years that this Price Anderson Act has been in place, it has never had to be employed. Barack Obama voted to extend the Act in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and it was made into law.
I’m not against wind, solar, or geothermal per se, but I find supporters of those technologies actively oppose nuclear with the same second hand ignorance that I see in some of the posts here. Nuclear is the real game changer in energy. Fossil fuel companies, like BP for example, prop up renewables because it improves their public image, they get tax breaks, and they know its no threat to their mainline of business. Anyone who believes renewables are the only answer is an unwitting pawn of the fossil fuel industries. If you are serious about the climate change problem, then taking nuclear off the table is only going to accelerate the problem. Why do you think so many prominent environmentalists now support nuclear?
Think nuclear can’t have a renewable profile? Think again, the person who mentioned Thorium reactors is on the right track. Even traditional nuclear technology will last thousands of years with the right approach.
The real sub-atomic promise of renewable energy is in Plasma….or so I heard.