Posted on 08/16/2008 11:01:52 AM PDT by kellynla
Increased use of nuclear (an outright competitor to coal as a deliverer of baseload power) is essential to combat climate change
The location for this year's Camp for Climate Action - outside the Kingsnorth power station in Kent - was well chosen: it is here that E.ON wants to build the first new coal-fired plant in the UK in nearly 30 years. With coal the most global-warming-intensive fuel on the market, and six more coal plants in the pipeline if Kingsnorth gets the go-ahead, there is a clear line to be drawn in the sand.
But the Kent protesters are not the only ones banging the drum against coal. Dr James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies and probably the best-known climato logist alive, has been travelling the globe trying to persuade politicians that the best way to rein in future climate change is by a rapid phase-out of coal-burning power stations. First stop was Germany, where Hansen met the environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel. Germany is planning more than 20 new plants, despite Chancellor Angela Merkel's much-vaunted determination to combat climate change. The meeting ended without success. "We agreed to disagree, as we were both trying to be cordial," Hansen reports.
Next stop was Britain, where Hansen received a letter from the environment minister Phil Woolas in response to his earlier petitioning of Gordon Brown to lead a moratorium on new coal plants. The letter - available on Hansen's website - is notable for its "self-deception" (in Hansen's words): the government pretends that new fossil-fuel plants can be built almost with impunity as long as they are "carbon-capture ready", allowing "economic retrofit of the technology when commercially available, by 2020 if possible".
(Excerpt) Read more at newstatesman.com ...
This person is silly. The anti-coal people do not want fossil-fuel plants replaced with nuclear plants. They want them replaced with nothing. They also want the people who rely on the power on them to use less, or (they would prefer) die.
If GW alarmism can convince a few leaners to turn their support to nuclear power, then we should count our blessings.
sarc/off
I agree, the hubris of these scatter-brained dullards never ceases to amaze me.
"Uh...no."
"How about offshore drilling and opening ANWR?"
"No, it's mostly about solar and wind-..."
"Sorry, not interested." [click]
The core of his plan is to generate the base electrical power supply with nuclear, freeing up natural gas for transportation. So apparently you got a call from a crank for some reason.
bump..
“I agree, the hubris of these scatter-brained dullards never ceases to amaze me.”
They can’t even organize and run their own lives, yet they presume to tell everyone else how to live theirs ... oh, wait, that sounds like congress, doesn’t it?
“This person is silly. The anti-coal people do not want fossil-fuel plants replaced with nuclear plants. They want them replaced with nothing.”
Nuclear power is the #1 path to address all the concerns the environmentalists raise about coal. It elimates all pollutants, the waste stream is small, and nuclear power has been proven to be safe and economical over the years.
Nuclear power is an intelligence test for the environmental movement.
If they reject nuclear *and* coal, they are anti-energy dolts more interested in tearing down our industrial society than reforming it to be more environmentally responsible.
GOOD ANSWER! We need to give the "WE" folks the same answer too. if it doesnt include nuclear power, IT'S A PIPEDREAM NOT A SOLUTION.
If T-Boone is not advertizing for nuclear, is not including nuclear on a level playing field in his subsidy advocacy, then I would question if his support for ‘all of the above’ means much.
We need to - at a minimum - include nuclear as a ‘renewable’ energy for purposes of renewable energy requirements. States and the fed govt are on a path to require X% of electricity be generated by ‘alternative energy’... when you limit it to wind and solar, that forces higher cost electricity.
This man needs to be fired from NASA, or at least give him a $0 expense account.
But they still use flush toilets, and use fossil fuels in their VW buses. Hypocrites All.
If they reject nuclear *and* coal, they are anti-energy dolts more interested in tearing down our industrial society than reforming it to be more environmentally responsible.
But that's my point. Many of them, in my estimation, are interested in exactly that, and only that: tearing down our industrial society is precisely what they're about.
That the disappearance of industrial society would necessarily entail the disappearance of a very large percentage of the population of the world, especially in underdeveloped countries, is an outcome that bothers them not at all, and a few of them have been so arrogant/foolish to admit it in semi-public situations in which they believed themselves to be safe among fellow true believers.
I just hit on this today: if you ever find yourself in a conversation with a true hard-core environmentalist, try (if you can do so, because keeping your wits when confronting such utter irrationality is difficult, at least for me) asking them this simple question: "what do you think would be a sustainable population for the earth." If they are willing to give a number, I can pretty much predict that the number they give will be far lower than the current population. At that point, ask them: "how do we get to that number."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
