See the post here taken from a Public Health blog called 'The Pump Handle,' which it's safe to say I will use as a reference fairly often...
http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/what-the-hell-its-only-a-nuclear-facility/#more-1703
Now, I'm all for promoting efficient energy methods - including nuclear power - but the issues mentioned here raise a lot of red flags. If we want clean, renewable energy, then we sure as heck had better use the best possible methods and technologies when developing such an infrastructure - otherwise, we will just be leaving ourselves with more problems in the future, with a lot of pissed off citizens, and a really big bill to pay. As this guy said, "Tempest in a teapot? Well, it’s a nuclear teapot and I’m not exactly up for a nuclear tempest to go with it." I understand the growing national (and global) concern and sense of urgency surrounding energy and environmental issues, but we can't afford to be clumsy with these matters. This administration clearly seems appears to have a very limited perspective on such issues, though. I hope that the next one will actually consider such improvements to be a priority and approach it responsibly, rather than allow their actions to be dictated by big oil companies...
Here's an interesting clip to check out that might give you a new perspective as well: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1641244028/bclid1641831933/bctid1653634930
Why aren't we making more of an effort to take advantage of such an abundant resource as wind is across the Great Plains?? It's so obvious a solution and we're just considering it now? It's enough to make one wonder - has the government really been that out of touch, or have they been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit? Either way, it's a shame...
If you want to learn more about the worlds newest renewable energy technologies, check out: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/
It provides a wide variety of information that should prove to be quite useful in the future as we move ever closer to the wide-spread use of environmentally friendly energy sources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Couldn't sleep... so here I go:
"Why aren't we making more of an effort to take advantage of such an abundant resource as wind is across the Great Plains?? It's so obvious a solution and we're just considering it now? It's enough to make one wonder - has the government really been that out of touch, or have they been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit? Either way, it's a shame..."
As far as Pickens' plan goes, I like it but he needs to think bigger. He owns a lot of stock in wind and natural gas, so of course he pushes those, but he still maintains that 50% of our energy come from coal?! His wind plan is fine, and natural gas for buses and trucks is a great idea, but he needs to do one thing before he convinces me: Introduce a plan that reduces our consumption, not just passes it on to another method of production. If we reduce our consumption then it saves us a lot more than that $300 billion he spoke of. It's not a production/supply problem it's consumption/demand problem. Fix it the right way.
As far as the government not doing anything about alternative energy...it's been an economically conservative administration for 8 years now, and it really isn't the government's job to administer energy, what could they really do? Mandate that alternative energy be used no matter the cost? That's arguably just as bad as doing nothing at all. The government has played it's role as well as can be expected and it's not Bush's fault that gas prices are finally rising to the point they should have been at years ago.
Had gas prices been at real market rates without subsidies since the last oil crisis, there would be a much more viable market for alternatives. This considered, any government that allowed gas prices to rise this high would be crucified for maiming the economy. Any rise in gas prices now has millions of people in a fit, when in reality, it's helpful to the economy in the long run because we're just paying the difference in taxes anyway, and with more expensive gas, taxes would decrease and allow more personal spending, making it more of a user charge (you use more, you pay more) than a broad tax.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm tired of the government being the scapegoat. We cause these problems by complaining about moderately high gas prices and voting along those same lines. People are too short-sighted. It's not the government's problem to fix, it's ours. Vote with your money and buy an electric car or some solar panels.
Also, that article is ridiculous. The government doesn't build nuclear plants, they're built and run by private firms. Private companies (especially utility companies) don't cut corners because if the plant blows up or fails the company goes out of business and everyone loses their job and potentially goes to prison. Why would they risk that?
Any new plant in the US would exceed the safety of plants built during the last nuclear boom, and with the largest nuclear accident in the US being three mile island (an incident which caused ZERO deaths) how risky do they think these plants will be?
Nuclear energy is an entirely viable option at this point. Electric cars charged at night by nuclear plants would effectively cut our demand for foreign oil (with the exception of Canada) to zero. Note we get 19% of our oil from the Middle East, and this would reduce our consumption by twice that much.
Post a Comment