Skip to main content

Yes, it's the economy, stupid. With the election closing in on us, jobs are at the top of everyone's issue list -- except among the news media, which has developed a curious affection for tea. But just because important issues are being giving little attention doesn't mean they have been solved. One area that's not getting the level of coverage it deserves in this election year is the environment.

So join Michael Brune (who has visited us before) to discuss what can and should be done about environmental issues as we roll toward November and beyond.

Question: At this point, there seems to be a great deal of despair around the issue of climate change. Democrats don't seem to have the guts for any definitive action, Republicans have stalled even the most tentative steps, and even international calls for change seem to have turned into confused mumbles. Do you see any real hope of progress on this issue while there is still time to do something?

Michael Brune: I do see hope, because even though we’ve been beaten in the fight to get a comprehensive climate bill passed in Congress, and even though we couldn’t get anything decent out of Copenhagen last year, progress is being made on other fronts. A grassroots movement has unified to stop the construction of 138 (and counting) new coal-fired power plants. A growing collection of organizations is building momentum to stop the expansion of Canada’s dirty tar sands. Planning is underway for large-scale deployment of offshore wind, and there’s some other scattered good news on new car regulations, distributed solar, investments in efficiency, etc.

There was no way that a single bill passed by Congress was going to solve our climate crisis, just as no treaty signed by a majority of nations will suddenly transform the global economy from dirty to clean energy. Certainly we weren’t going to get strong bills or treaties when legislators have been so intimidated by the oil and coal lobby.

The good news (and it is real, genuine, bona-fide good news) is that we can make significant cuts in carbon in the next several years while reducing the size and influence of the oil and coal industries. We have a shot of shutting down up to a third of the U.S. coal fleet within the next five years. Think about that. We’ll do this by pushing the EPA to enforce the Clean Air Act to make coal-burning utilities follow the law and clean up their oldest and dirtiest plants. When these plants have to pay to clean up their pollution, they can’t compete with clean energy, pure and simple.

Similar gains can be made in reducing oil consumption. The kicker is this: as the coal and oil industries are reduced, clean energy sectors like solar and wind will gain in size and influence. Costs will continue to drop, employment will grow, and a new politics can emerge. Rather than a comprehensive bill being the first thing we do to fight climate, it might be the last.

So... that’s one way it can work out. Yes, we still have a steep climb. Yes, the oil and coal lobbies will fight us at every opportunity. And yes, this may very well get harder after this election. But there’s a
genuine pathway to success here, and it doesn’t depend on buying out a couple Senators to somehow compile 60 votes.

Question: The Clean Water Protection Act has 172 sponsors in the House and still hasn't moved forward. The Appalachia Restoration Act has bipartisan support in the Senate, including cosponsors from coal producing states. Even so, we're left with what appear to be contradictory regulations and statements on mountaintop removal. Is there any chance of either of these bills being advanced before the end of the session, or failing that, of the Obama administration taking definitive action to end mountaintop removal mining?

Michael Brune: We’d love to see action on both bills before the end of this session but it doesn’t look likely, which is very disappointing. We need legislation that will outlaw MTR once and for all.

In the meantime, it’s up to Obama’s EPA to put a halt to any further blasting in Appalachia. The biggest test of the Administration’s commitment to coalfield residents, Appalachia’s mountains – and basic environmental sanity – is whether the Administration will approve Arch Coal’s Spruce mine MTR mining permit. Today there are hundreds of coalfield residents in Washington, D.C. calling for an end to mountaintop removal as part of the Appalachia Rising mobilization, which the Sierra Club co-sponsored along with many other groups. We hope the Obama administration is listening.

(More after the break)

Question: We're finally starting to see some electric vehicles returning to the American market, but the availability of these vehicles is very limited (you can read this as "neither Chevy or Nissan will sell me a car here in the Midwest even though I'm waving money at them and willing to buy today"). Do you think the manufacturers are serious this time? How does this fit in with your overall ideas for green transportation?

Michael Brune: Yes, we are glad to see automakers producing more electric and hybrid vehicles, but we need to make sure this isn’t just more tokenism. It’s time to move to electrify much of the transportation sector (while we decarbonize how power is produced).

But it’s important to remember that this is only part of the solution. It's really about reducing our overall driving, as the vast majority of cars on the road will run on oil for years to come, since the average car is on the road for more than 15 years. Livable communities where we can walk, bike and use mass transit are essential to a clean energy future.

For now we're calling on the Obama administration to propose strong new federal fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards for cars and light trucks. That rulemaking process will start in just a couple days, and will be finalized early next year – covering model years from 2017 to 2025. Let’s hope the standards that are establish don’t simply tinker around with the internal combustion engine when a more rapid transformation is required. If we’re to break our dependence on oil, we’ll need to see some urgency from the White House. Today transportation consumes more than 70% of the 19 million barrels of oil used daily in the U.S. Transportation is also responsible for 30% of global warming pollution in the United States.

Question: There's just one public hearing left on the EPA's proposals for dealing with coal ash. Even though it's gotten almost no press coverage, these hearings have been well-attended, often standing-room only, and the questions have shown how much people in the area really care about this issue. Where does the Sierra Club come down on the current set of proposals? Do you think these hearings will affect the EPA's decision?

Michael Brune: Coal ash is toxic, hazardous waste, and we want the EPA to regulate it as such. We certainly expect these hearings to have an impact - the determination of citizens across the country to be heard on this issue has been inspiring. I attended the Dallas hearing, and people traveled from Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas and all across Texas, during torrential downpours and floods, just so they could tell EPA to regulate toxic coal ash more stringently than household garbage. One guy rode his bike 1800 miles to get there!

Both the EPA and the National Academy of Sciences have years of research showing that coal ash is becoming increasingly toxic. How bad is it? Consider that the health risks of living near a coal ash dump are greater than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. More than 1.5 million children live near these sites – it’s just unacceptable to not dispose of this waste properly. For decades, the coal industry has told the American people that coal ash is safe, just as BP executives said that offshore drilling was safe, and tobacco executives told Americans that cigarettes didn't cause cancer and auto executives told us that installing catalytic converters would wreck the industry. Is there anyone who thinks we should just take polluting CEO’s at their word any more?

This is actually a very straightforward issue. Coal ash is laced with toxic chemicals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and more. Corporations shouldn’t be allowed to just dump this waste casually near drinking water sources and in ways that would contaminate our air and water. Effective coal ash regulations need to require basic protections for communities, including composite liners, water run-off controls, groundwater monitoring, and the financial assurance that companies pay to clean up what they pollute. EPA has identified two options: treat coal ash as a hazardous waste or essentially perpetuate the status quo. Wanna guess what we support?

Considering the tremendous grassroots support that we have seen at the hearings around the country, I am hopeful that EPA will do the right thing.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:34 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you for being here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet, Benintn, ParkRanger

    Looking forward to a lively conversation

  •  Home Star? (7+ / 0-)

    Hi Michael - I'm a long time Sierra Club member. I think energy conservation can play a huge role in reducing our use of coal for electricity.

    Along those lines, does the proposed Home Star program for energy conservation stand a chance this year?

    There should never be a tax benefit for companies that screw over American workers.

    by bear83 on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:42:32 PM PDT

    •  Home Star (4+ / 0-)

      I agree. Energy conservation and efficiency are critical to reduce our use of coal and other dirty forms of energy. As Amory Lovins says, efficiency is not just a free lunch, it's a lunch you get paid to eat!

      Home Star definitely has a chance in this Congress. It's incredible that we should have to struggle so much just to get legislation passed that will protect the planet, improve public health, create jobs, AND reduce expenses for homeowners and business, but that's the situation we're in. The Club will make getting Home Star over the finish line a priority in lame duck.

  •  Thanks for joining us! I'm frustrated with the (6+ / 0-)

    inability to get things done in the Senate.  Without discussing why we can't get things done (a lengthy discussion, I'm sure), I'd like to hear your views on on-the-ground activity.  You were hired from RAN and promised, IIRC, a more activist Sierra Club.  

    What real life activities do you have planned? A few years ago, Al Gore called for activists to chain themselves to coal plants.  I half-think he's right.

    Why aren't environmentalists involved at all with the two big upcoming marches, 10/2/10 and Stewart/Colbert's 10/30/10 march?

    •  Colbert, One Nation... (8+ / 0-)

      The Club has endorsed the 10/2 rally, One Nation Coming Together. We'll be there - It's a great opportunity to deepen our alliance with a broad range of like-minded organizations.

      As far as Stewart/Colbert, I'd love for us to get involved. We're figuring out what we can do...

      As far as other "real life activities" we're doing tons over the next few months on coal ash, getting America off oil, etc. Check out our Facebook app to see if you and yours live near a coal ash dump site:

      http://www.facebook.com/...

      •  Maybe updated electric grid can help? (0+ / 0-)

        Seems to me that the push for infrastructure development, combined with the goal of smart development and conservation, can be combined if we do it right.

        The two don't naturally get together but with the rise of the electric vehicle this decade, I have a feeling we can work together with groups like IBEW and others.

        Thoughts?  Am I naive?

        15 million voters in 37 days. Sign up at OFA today.

        by Benintn on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:53:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Check local SC chapters for their activities. (0+ / 0-)
      For example, the chapter here in Silicon Valley is really pushing forward with its "Cool Cities Campaign" to urge politicians of local cities to expand on green buildings, water conservation, etc.
        Angeles chapter should have similar programs.

      My Karma just ran over your Dogma

      by FoundingFatherDAR on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 03:50:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  my question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    camacho749

    Is the any chance we can finally compel the White House to re-install the solar panels?

    Bill McKibben has been trying so hard, and he has basically been politely denied.

    What will it take to make this small symbolic happen?

  •  Michael (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    camacho749, LaughingPlanet, Benintn

    Progressive Californians are extremely concerned about Prop 23. What activities and publicity do you have in mind for helping us defeat this initiative and beat back Texas oil?

    oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

    Twitter: @DanteAtkins

    by Dante Atkins on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:49:56 PM PDT

    •  right now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mr MadAsHell

      (as you likely know) it is failing by 2 to 1, according to recent polling.

      However, as the election draws nigh, their expenditure$ are $ure to ri$e.

      Big Oil & Coal Spent $500 Million to Kill Climate Bill :
      http://www.treehugger.com/...

      •  LP, it depends on the poll (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RLMiller

        recent LA Times polling had it 40-38. While that's still good news given the fact that at this stage of polling it normally takes majority support by now for an initiative to pass, we still can't take anything for granted.

        oops. I hope the gate wasn't too expensive.

        Twitter: @DanteAtkins

        by Dante Atkins on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:54:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  prop 23 (8+ / 0-)

      Prop 23 is the most important climate fight in the country in this election. Not only do we want to win, but we want a rout. We want to send a message that clean energy policies are here to stay, in California and elsewhere.

      The Club is part of a huge field effort to remind people what's at stake and to turn people out on NOvember 2. We're specifically targeting enviro/infrequent voters who surged to the polls in 2008 and can make a critical difference this year. Check out the campaign's website at www.standagainstprop23.com

      •  There are others (0+ / 0-)

        Credo has a petition going around:

        stop-texas-oil



        (Click the Pic) ========== >

        Become a citizen endorser of Stop Texas Oil: Hell no on 23

        Fighting the Texas oil companies who want to abolish California's landmark climate change law (AB 32) won't be easy. They have millions to throw at this race before the November election and we know they'll be outspending anyone in their way.

        http://www.credoaction.com/...

        That doesn't mean they're going to win. Californians can defeat these Texas oil companies by showing how many of us oppose this dirty proposition, and exposing Prop 23 for what it is: an attempt by out-of-state oil executives to dictate California law, in spite of the will of millions of Californians.

        Help show that California voters oppose this attempt by Texas oil companies to reverse our landmark global warming law. Sign on as a citizen endorser of the Stop Texas Oil: Hell No on 23 campaign.

        BlogNoProp23_Logo2

  •  New TVA directors - will it help? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    camacho749

    Obama (finally!) got some new TVA directors but kept on the board chair (Bill Sansom).

    Do you think the new direction of TVA will help with all this coal ash mess?  Especially after the Kingston plant spill in late 2008, you'd think TVA would be ready to turn the page.

    What do you see?  How can I help from here in Nashville?

    15 million voters in 37 days. Sign up at OFA today.

    by Benintn on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 12:51:18 PM PDT

    •  TVA (0+ / 0-)

      We're cautiously optimistic about the new directors to change TVA's direction, not just for coal ash, but to accelerate the retirement of TVA's dirty coal plants and to replace them with efficiency and clean energy.

      In the short term, we need to get coal ash to be regulated as a hazardous waste. Having TVA weigh in publicly, and strongly, in favor of effective and tough coal ash regs would be great. And continued pressure on EPA to do this right is invaluable. Here's the Club's action alert on coal ash:

      Support the EPA in stepping up against King Coal as they fight to push the clean up of the toxic waste product of coal power plants, coal ash: https://secure2.convio.net/...

      •  TVA looking to replace worst coal-fired plants (0+ / 0-)

        . . . with small nuclear reactors.  If it happens, what a big step forward for clean electricity!  

        One nuclear fuel pellet weighing the same as a couple of pennies is the energy equivalent of 1,780 pounds of coal.

        Shutting down fossil fuels is an important mission, and I appreciate Sierra Club's efforts.

        Amory Lovins: "Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy....." IPCC: Anthropogenic greenhouse gases will cause extinction of up to 70% of species by 2050.

        by Plan9 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:05:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  hydraulic fracturing and tar sands (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    camacho749, ParkRanger

    two of the worlds greatest loomimg ecological disasters seem to be passing by without the public being concerned or informed. Do you guys take a position on these?

    •  Fracking and the tar sands (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RosyFinch, cacamp, ParkRanger

      There's growing awareness about both issues.

      The Club is strongly opposed to the expansion of drilling and oil infrastructure investments in the tar sands. Tar sands development take us EXACTLY in the wrong direction. We're part of a huge coalition of groups working on this, from RAN to IEN, NRDC, OIl Change International and others.

      Re: fracking. This is also a huge concerns. It may be true that natural gas burns more cleanly than coal or oil, but that doesn't mean that people should have to sacrifice their drinking water or air quality at the same time. The Club is working to force disclosure of the toxic chemical used in fracking, and then to eliminate the use of those chemicals. We're also working to close the "Halliburton loophole" that gas extractors enjoy - loopholes in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air ACt, Clean Water, etc. Finally, we're pushing for much tighter regs at the state and federal level and if they're not adopted, moratoria to be established until public health can be protected.

  •  Environmental justice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RLMiller

    How important will enviro justice be as the economy and climate change combine to take a toll on the poorest among us? Will the Sierra club do more on environmental justice?

  •  My understanding is that scientific consensus (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    camacho749, mdmslle

    indicates we need to reduce fossil fuel emissions collectively by 80% by 2050 if we are to avoid climate change catastrophes later this century.  What is the Sierra Club's position on emission reduction targets?  Does the Sierra Club also offer policy alternatives to help us achieve such incredible reduction goals?

    The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

    by mojo workin on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:06:57 PM PDT

    •  Emissions cuts (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RosyFinch, camacho749, greenbastard

      The Club supports the goal of cutting emissions by at least 80% by 2050, and that we need to make significant progress on this as soon as possible.

      We have clear policy alternatives that will help us to get there, including our plan to retire the U.S. coal fleet in the next twenty years, replacing coal with efficiency and clean energy.

      We also are building a coalition of groups to dramatically cut our dependence on oil over the next 20 years. Here's a little video we put together with Eva Mendes last week: www.beyondoil.org

      Finally, we can't get to 350 without protecting forests and changing industrial agriculture. This will become an increasingly important campaign in the years ahead.

  •  Direct action ... (4+ / 0-)

    As head of RAN, you were involved in some of the most interesting direct action efforts in the nation.

    Right now, 100 are getting arrested in DC related to Appalachia Rising's efforts which Sierra Club supported. (See Trash the planet, earn bonuses. Call attention to this, go to jail.)

    What sort of impact do you see this having?

    How can we get media attention to this?

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:08:01 PM PDT

    •  Direct action (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      A Siegel, camacho749

      This was also the first question in the string. I think today's action can have a great impact. When you think of it, it's completely crazy that people would have to go to jail in an effort to stop coal companies from blowing up mountains, burying thousands of miles of streams and poisoning communities to get at a small amount of coal, but that's what is happening today. Clearly, Congress and the Obama Administration need more motivation to outlaw MTR altogether. Let's hope today's action helps.

  •  Gotta go folks (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for all your comments and questions. I'll check back later if there are any more...

  •  Climate Zombies, Peacocks, Heroes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    squarewheel

    One of the most notable things about this election campaign, imo, is the sickenly stark contrast on climate change issues.

    The Sierra Club, in your position, has to be non-partisan. I recognize this.

    But, there is not a single Democratic candidate for Senate (as far as I can figure out) who is as bad on climate issues and climate science as the absolute best Republican candidate.

    Every single Republican Senate candidate is a Climate Zombie, rejecting basic science and supporting absolutely destructive policies.

    How can Sierra Club inform its members while remaining true to non-partisan requirements?

    PS: RE Climate Peacocks / Zombies (definitions)es (definitions).

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 01:20:39 PM PDT

  •  What are you smoking(figuratively, of course)? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbastard
    What substantive reasons do you have for the optimism you profess? Obama has, in my assessment, been no friend of the environment whatsoever, and if you look closely enough you will see he has recently protected Coal interests several times. The Dems in Congress have been blocked by Coal and Oil interests (Rockefeller and Landrieu come to mind immediately). The Republicans are going to run on a platform with anti-intellectualism and creationism at its core- they are going to deny the climate is changing because the Christian God will protect America. I'm not making any of this up.
  •  Invasive Species and Fire (0+ / 0-)
    Down here in the Southeastern- US, two of our biggest threats to native ecosystems are invasive species and lack of fire.  Fire dependent -longleaf pine forests once dominated most everything that wasn't a swamp from Southeast Virginia to Eastern Texas.   Thousands and thousands of species adapted to a pyrogenic landscape.   Most of T & E our species live in the longleaf pine forests (indigo snakes, gopher tortoises, Bachman's sparrows, red-cockaded woodpeckers, etc.)  If there is any hope of restoring our native ecosystems, we need lots of prescribed fire and we need to control our worst invasives - in particular cogon grass Imperata cylindrica and climbing fern Lygodium spp.
    The ARRA funds jump-started a big cogon grass project here in Alabama and it also put a bunch of money into subsidizing fire.   That's some awesome news for our beleaguered native ecosystems.
    I encourage the Sierra Club to focus on two issues where they could easily work with the other side of spectrum and do a world of good for Planet Earth, do this: promote programs that target invasive species, and do whatever you can to promote and protect our right to burn.  If the EPA ever shuts down prescribed fire in the Southeast, countless species endemic to the fire-maintained longleaf pine forests will disappear.  
    You have your charge.

    I'll put on my glasses.... and tell you how sweet your ass is. (w/ apologies to SeƱor Bega)

    by mHainds on Mon Sep 27, 2010 at 02:27:28 PM PDT

  •  Let's not forget all the pesticides released into (0+ / 0-)

    the water and air.  I was wondering when someone would start talking about the enviornment.  Thanks.

  •  French-Canadians Invade Berlin (0+ / 0-)

     title=

    That's [.pdf]Berlin, NH.

    The badly clipped article talked of two greenies planning to convert CO2 from power plants to biofuels and another looking to use the process heat for greenhouses on brownfield sites.  I could find nothing on either company.

    Hi Michael,

    This front page article represents a defeat for the Sierra Club which linked arms with Olde King Coal to defeat the biomass power plant.

    While the Sierra Club has abandoned this apparently lost cause and has gone on to do hurt to green causes elsewhere, I would appreciate your response to the fight against thermal biomass power.  I am told it is not universally admired by all members of the Sierra Club.

    As a courtesy to a distinguished visitor, I will not do my usual arguing and cussing of what I regard as - umm, ahh - dirtbags.

    The floor is all yours should you choose to respond.

    Best,  Terry

  •  If you're not against us, you're for us (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GCarty, mojo workin, Joffan, Finrod01

    Michael:

    Thank you for a terrific set of responses. I have often told people who advocate for using wind, solar, and geothermal as the only new energy sources that they will consider that they are, in effect, arguing for increased use of coal and natural gas.

    I guess I should be consistent and recognize that anyone who argues as effectively as you have against the increased use of coal and natural gas that you are, in effect, arguing for the increased use of nuclear energy.

    As you have pointed out, coal, oil and natural gas have some environmentally unfortunate side effects that simply cannot be overcome. They all release vast quantities of CO2, and their extraction, refinement and distribution consumes vast quantities of other materials and releases even more noxious chemicals into the environment.

    Their only real competitive advantage in the energy production world - and it is a big one - is that they can be controlled to release their stored energy when and where humans need and want it. No one has to wait until the sun shines or the wind blows in order to turn on a light, cool their stored food, visit Grandma, or take a trip to see the ocean. No one needs a 400 foot tall tower housing a machine larger than most locomotives connected to blades longer than a football field in order to have the economy of scale needed for low cost POWER. They can get it from a motor the size of a weedwacker or scooter.

    The big competitor to fossil fuels on a playing field that values reliability and energy density is nuclear energy. Pound for pound, uranium packs an enormous energy punch - it contains 2 MILLION times as much energy per unit mass as oil, more than 3 MILLION times as much as most grades of coal, and 5-10 MILLION times as much as most forms of biomass.

    That energy density means that only a few mines around the world can supply enough uranium to produce 7% of the world's total energy needs now, even though we only use about 0.5% of the potential energy before removing fuel rods from reactors and storing them away for future generations.

    When we need to, we can start using fast spectrum reactors and such sophistications as Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors to take advantage of all of the fuel that we have already stored away in carefully marked and protected above ground reservoirs. As people realize the benefits of these kinds of systems for large scale power production, they might also realize that systems like Hyperion's power modules and NuScale's modular reactors will make dense, emission free nuclear energy available on a smaller scale.

    They might even recall that scientists and engineers have figured out how to turn nuclear heat into useful electricity on a scale small enough to power satellites, navigation buoys and even pacemakers. Those proven innovations can enable nuclear energy to compete against fossil fuels in a much larger portion of the energy market than is currently being allowed by the establishment energy industry.

    Keep on fighting coal, oil and gas. You do not even have to say anything positive about nuclear - we know that its use will continue to grow as long as our competition has to begin paying for a complete product that actually does what we already do.

    When coal, oil and gas have to capture their waste and protect the environment, nuclear costs will look pretty darned reasonable. When nuclear energy system production ramps up, the usual effect of dropping prices as we learn will take over and release an enormous resource of abundant, emission free energy.

    Rod Adams
    Publisher, Atomic Insights

    •  More environmentalists support nuclear (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Finrod01

      ...former Greenpeace directors among them.

      I predict that once Sierra Club takes a serious look at how destructive natural gas extraction is in the national forests and how much methane it adds to the earth's burden of greenhouse gases and how many people it kills in the US annually, it will return to its pro-nuclear stance.

      Yes, the Sierra Club advocated "Atoms Not Dams".  This was an effort save pristine wilderness instead of destroying it with big hydro projects back in the 1960s-early 1970s.

      The fact is this:  the only small-carbon-footprint, pollution-free, large-scale way to replace the baseload electricity supplied by fossil-fuel plants is to use nuclear power.  This is why so many environmentalists are now supporting it.

      Amory Lovins: "Coal can fill the real gaps in our fuel economy....." IPCC: Anthropogenic greenhouse gases will cause extinction of up to 70% of species by 2050.

      by Plan9 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 at 08:12:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site