Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Eric Lane Subscribe

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Robert, we are not that far apart.  My argument is safety  and long-term repercussions.  We can argue details like the fossil fuel industry has been our 'friend.'  We have fought one war after another over fossil fuels.  In the 70's, the Hip-eyes were warning us about the environmental damage that was being caused by fossil fuel consumption.  Since then, FF industry has gone on a tare.  I'm not sold on nuclear.  I almost was lulled into accepting the nuclear waste issue until Fukushima.  Now I want 100% safety for nuclear power plants, that means absolutely no chance of a meltdown, no radiation leaks, no dependency on scarce water supplies or causing harm around nuclear power plants.  And the waste issue must be completely non-existent.  In other words, safety and the precautionary principle.  Why?  Because if we again become dependent on another energy source, we can't be replacing one evil for another.  Imagine, as I said previously, thousands of nuclear plants running 24 hrs. a day all over the world.  To me, right now, this is a nightmare.  I don't really care how many FF's it puts out of business.  It's just creating a whole new can of worms.

With solar, we have none of these problems.  None.  The only arguments I hear are the negative ones: we can't do it, not enough base load, etc.  Huh?  Put a few trillion dollars in front of American/world ingenuity and watch what happens.  Solar simply makes sense.  The only real pollution is in the manufacturing of the panels. 

Finally, as I've said, I'm not optimistic.  There are no signs that anything serious is being done to 1. slow down FF consumption.  2. Bring population growth under control  3. look to see if capitalism is a sustainalbe economic system.  To be honest, it may take a second Civil War to save humanity.  The fossil fuel industry is so crazed with profits that they will fight to keep the profits coming until they are behind bars.  Just like the slave traders.  Many of the fossil fuel big boys come from that background.   

May 9, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Robert, you are arguing that only nuclear can save our planet.  Nice argument for the pro-nuclear crowd.  You seem to base this on two arguments.  The first is we need to break our dependence of fossil fuels and only nuclear can save our chestnuts.  Second, the only thing standing in the way of your vision are the anti-nuclear, don't know what they are talking about, crowd.   

I would counter your argument by saying that your first argument is completely theoretical.  In a nuclear energy dependent world the waste stream problem would be huge within a very short period of time.  Imagine thousands of nuclear power plants spewing toxic waste everyday of every year in the future.  Until the waste issue is resolved, we are replacing one catastrophe with another.  Second, you believe the anti-nuclear crowd is the problem with nuclear power.  I hope they are.  But, the reality is that the fossil fuel industry is the real threat to any alternative to fossil fuel dependency.  It is why solar power is hindered at every step.  The fossil fuel industry and the Kock brothers specifically, are doing everything in their power to grow the fossil fuel industry and stimmie any alternatives.  I've said before that I am not optomistic about the chances for human survival.  We need to be walking gently on this earth.  We aren't.  Population growth alone is taking us to the edge of survival.  Capatalism, the idea of constant and endless growth based on greed, is not exactly an economic system preparing us for living on a finite planet.  Do you think the economic elite want anything to change?  You believe nuclear power is pulling a rabbit out of the hat.  It will save our chestnuts.  It won't.  At best, it is part of the problem.       

May 8, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Robert, I am going to start a new thread since this one is becoming way to tinie. 

 

May 8, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

I think most of you guys live in some nuclear fantasyland.  Nuclear has never supported itself.  It has lived off the government teat since it was born.  Let me illustrate.  First, the nuclear industry is not responsible for any nuclear accidents.  We the people are.  The industry's clean-up costs are capped.  Isn't that nice?  I'd like to have that franchise.  Build anything I want and if it pollutes an entire country or planet well, you guys pay to clean it up.  Nice.  Second, without federal loan guarantees, there would be absolutely no discussion about nuclear power as an option.  You know what a loan guarantee is, right?  That's when the borrower fails to make the payments, the federal governement guarantees to make the paymensts.  Sweet, huh?  I'd love one of those loans.  These little bennies are before we even open up the nuclear energy spigot.  Then comes all the other inconveniences we need to deal with like waste, water, uranium, etc. but why worry our pretty little heads about all this.  After all, the pro-nuclear nutties have it all under control and don't need any subsidies.  Yeah, right.

May 8, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

I agree with stopping to subsidize FF's.  I don't agree with then subsidizing nuclear.  I am always shocked at this site how little respect is really paid to engeneering ingenuity that exists here in the U.S.  Why not turn the energy and subsidizes to solar?  Oh, I know.  There is too much money in nuclear and centralized energy power.  Sorry, I'm not with that agenda.

May 7, 2014    View Comment    

On Keystone XL's Emissions Versus Coal-Fired Power

KXL pipeline is all about whether we are serious about climate change or not.  If not the KXL, then what?  If not now, when?  If we don't stop the KXL then when and where do we take a stand?  Shall we just let greed be our guide, Robert?  I think that is what you are arguing. 

May 7, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Joris, and you don't think nuclear is subsidized? 

May 7, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Paul, I'm not locking anything in.  What I am saying is that we move forward with solar and use Natural Gas when necessary.  I would argue that in a very short period of time, if we truly turned to solar as our base for energy, storage as a problem would disappear rather quickly.  It's quite obvious that for you and Nate nuclear is the only way foward.  For me it's solar.  To equate a tsunami to the nuclear debacle that has been created is pure propaganda.  Sure the tsunami killed 20,000 people right away.  But, the tsunami has been gone for three years and people who lived near Fukushima, over 250,000 have been displaced.  Long term consequences are unknown.  The real issue is that Fukushima-Daiichi, like most nuclear power plants were buildt to withstand natural disasters.  Fukushima did not.  And we are living with its consequences.  It amazes me how flipantly you dismiss this on going tragedy.  I don't.  To me it is a red warning sign and we should heed it.  Especially since known alternatives that can only be improved exist.  I prefer solar, especially thermal to wind farms.  As I've said from the start, nuclear has so many problems from uranium mining to uranium dependency on third world countries to the waste stream that has to be protected for thousands of years to the specter of Black Swans that will occur no matter how much you promise they won't.  Why on earth would we want to become dependent on such a lethal energy source? 

May 7, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Paul, what is the use of something that can cause worse devestation than a tsunami or pollute the planet for 10,000 years or more and that is so expensive no one wants to invest in it unless the government (read the taxpayer) is willing to pay to build it, run it, and protect the corporation in case anything screws up.  Two can play this game of which is worse.  I have said all along that we start building solar plants and use natural gas to augment power when needed.  Is that really so hard to comprehend?  Why do you have such a problem with this?  Let's take your argument that solar is only available for 8 hours (which is a ridiculous assumption), that would cut our fossil fuel consumption by one-third.  Energy efficiency can cut another quarter to a third.  Does it really take a Rhode Scholar to figure this one out, Paul? 

May 6, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Bob, check my post to Nathan.  The problem with solar is not what you itemize, it's a lack of will.  By the time the first nuclear power plant is built and operational, you could have hundreds of solar power plants all over the country.  The problem is not with solar, it's with us and our lack of imperative.

May 6, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

The just completed Blue Wing Solar plant here in San Antonio, TX is a 14.4 megawatt installation.  It is capable of producing more than 26,570 megawatt-hours  of electricity per year -- enough to power 1,800 households.  And, if there is an accident, South Texas won't be threatened with a 'dead' zone or a continuous stream of hazardous waste that needs to be contained for thousands of years.  Am I missing something here?  Why on earth would we want to go nuclear when we could be popping off solar plants like this all over the country?   

May 6, 2014    View Comment    

On Eight Energy Myths Explained

Let me put it this way, Paul.  Right now fossil fuels power most of the economies of the world.  At the same time we are headed toward a climate disaster.  Now, if we switch to solar with natural gas as a back up when needed, we would probably cut 60 to 80% of our fossil fuel consumption.  You seem to argue that it's all or nothing.  I say let's move as quickly as possible to solar and use natural gas as a back up when needed.   Why is this so problematic? 

May 5, 2014    View Comment