I think that the mentality of utilities as well as the general public has changed over the past 10 years. Wind technology has grown into a recognizable and acceptable industry and the clean, reasonably priced power it is producing has become a desirable product.

Yes, there are problems to overcome with intermittancy due to wind variablility but with storage techniques continuing to advance, with transmission lines being extended and with control of variable power input improving, the industry should continue its rapid growth.

Water storage, tank liquid batteries, refrigeration and high pressure cavern storage may become practical solutions but I think that there are others to be explored. Once EV's, PHEV's electric trains and buses become common, one great use would be to charge up a few million of their batteries. I believe that in the long run, spinning wind turbine blades will assist in a great change to the transportation sector.

adrianakau2aol.com

What a GREAT photo of Pat Wood you got! I can't believe I missed this when it first came out. I giggled out loud like a schoolgirl for minutes...!

Yeah, Dana!

When are organizations like Californians For Clean and Reliable Energy going to finally admit that nuclear power is the ONLY solution to Global Warming and our power needs for decades to come ? ?

The very wealthy have managed to destroy much of our visual environment with ugly and useless windmill farms.

You could cover all the vacant land and deserts in California with windmill farms.....You could cover every available roof in California, Oregon and Washington (and a dozen other states) with solar panels and you would barely make a dent in our environmental problems. At their maximum they wouldn't even begin to keep up with world population growth. ONLY NUCLEAR POWER IS CAPABLE OF THAT ! ! !

Their intentions are good, but remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Stop wasting valuable time and taxpayers' money. Go Nuclear!

Ralph Andrews
President
NUCLEAR GREEN, INC.
info@nucleargreen.org

Dear Ralph,

Nuclear power is not the only solution to Global Warming and our power needs for decades to come. In fact, it is a very risky solution and one that is in need of close inspection.

Let us, for example, examine the 1959 Rocketdyne reactor accident which may have caused hundreds of cancers from the article posted by Charlie Petitit Oct. 6 in "Health and Medicine Stories".
(Article taken from Knight Science Journalism Tracker - http://ksjtracker.mit.edu
URL to article: http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/?p=1344)

"A nuclear reactor mishap at Rocketdyne test site in 1959 near Simi Valley on the border of heavily populated Los Angeles County went almost unreported at the time. Its very existence did not begin to emerge with any detail for 20 years. It’s been a simmering issue ever since. On Thursday an expert advisory panel appointed by local public officials in response to community worries said the release of radioactive Iodine-131 may have been among the largest of any such incident in US history. A whiff of Cold War military-industrial political muscle and coverup is in the air."

"AP’s Robert Jablon calls the incident a 'nuclear reactor meltdown' without equivocation, and passes on a claim that the released radioisotope could have caused 260 cancers in a 60-square-mile area around the site of the plant. The Boeing Co., which now owns the site, retorts that there is no sign that actual cancer incidence rose among plant workers, who presumably would have been most heavily exposed. LA Times’s Amanda Covarrubias refers to the incident simply as a nuclear accident in her lede, but as a meltdown deeper. She writes that up to 1,800 cancers may have ensued."

"The story merits further, deeper digging into exactly what happened to the reactor — a small, sodium-cooled, high temperature, 20 megawatt machine — and why so little information came out at the time. Did the entire fuel bundle melt? Just a bit of it? What containment, if any, was on this graphite-moderated machine? A web search finds references to a 'partial meltdown'but that’s ambiguous. Who is on the advisory panel and how credible is it? Its co-chairman, a little checking reveals, is president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, an anti-nuclear activist organization. The panel members’ objectivity might be examined. Hmmmm."

Ralph, you call windfarms "ugly and useless" but I say they are beautiful and useful. They convert wind energy into electricity.

You say that at their maximum, wind generated power "wouldn't even begin to keep up with world population growth". I say that given the opportunity, wind power will continue to grow exponentially and develop into one of the most important industries of this century.

You say "stop wasting valuable time and taxpayer's money. Go Nuclear!" I say that nuclear is not the answer to our energy problems and we should Go Clean by developing not only wind power but Geothermal, wave, concentrated solar, PV, free river and ocean current hydro.

I also say that we have not and will not be using our taxpayer's money wisely if we continue investing in Nuclear at the expense of developing clean technologies.

Yes, Ralph. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" and the road we have taken with nuclear is taking us there. Just read the latest on the nuclear cover-ups in Germany.
See http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494707,00.html

Here is the gist of the three part article:

First of all, as reactors age, they become more susceptible to system damage but no one seems to wish to take responsibility in reporting all the incidents. Only the major visible problems are normally reported.

Secondly, as more power demands are made from reactors, related systems are not accordingly beefed-up to compensate for the increased power output. Transformers have burned in both Japanese and German reactors.

Third, parts for old reactors are difficult to find since some manufacturers of those parts have gone out of business.

Fourth, it is difficult to find qualified personnel to train and run the reactors.

Nuclear plants and earthquake rift zones do not seem a good combination as evidenced by what happened in Japan recently. I think that Japan will have to look at other safer and more sustainable alternatives such as ocean current power conversion.

Yes, Ralph. Nuclear is producing power but is also accompanied by grave risks as at Cherynoble. It is a sword of Democrites that hangs over our heads suspended on a thread as we reap its benefits. One day we will be using renewable power that is truly clean and not sullied by radioactivity and its accompanying problems.

adrianakau2aol.com

Adrian,

Simply and kindly, you are wrong. You quote from the propaganda that emanates from The Sierra Club and Greenpeace. In spite of what you've copied to bolster your position, there has never been an accident or fatality caused by a nuclear reactor, with the exception of the easily understood incident at Chernobyl.

Nuclear is now safer than coal, natural gas, solar panels and windmills, and always will be. Solar panels and windmills are a waste of time and money and, at best, deliver false hope to people who are unsophisticated enough to listen to that "crap."

You are one of many people supporting the impossible and you all pose a definite threat to the safety of this planet. I can only hope that one day you will use your gift of articulation to support the only hope we have of stopping and reversing global warming....NUCLEAR ! ! !

Ralph
ralph@nucleargreen.org

Dear Ralph,

Thank you for your patronizing letter. You must remember that propaganda is a two edged sword and you are the one providing its source for the nuclear cause. I do not really care about boostering my position but only about bringing about the use of safe and clean forms of energy. Nuclear does not appear to fall under that classification.

Your litany on the safety of nuclear exceeding other forms of energy production sounds like a broken record from a confused mind. How can you honestly say that nuclear is safer than other forms of energy production given that the disposal of nuclear waste alone is such a serious problem.

Nuclear plants, not wind generators, PV or even concentrated solar can be used to manufacture bomb producing materials. Not a single ounce of nuclear weapons could ever have been made without the existance of a nuclear plant of some sort. Perhaps you are suffering from a temporary delusion on this issue of safety and potential hazard.

I believe that nuclear is not a sustainable or a safe way to stop and reverse global warming. Rather it will be the use of the many forms of alternate energy such as Geothermal, free river and ocean current hydro, wave energy, wind energy, concentrated solar, PV and whatever else may be found.

Ralph, all this is possible and I believe will come about in a matter of time

adrianakau@aol.com

Dear Ralph,

If being "brainwashed" means looking for a source of truly clean power, then I qualify. However, I think that you, as an "unbrainwashed" person should look carefully into nuclear waste disposal problems. As you know, the Yucca area is beset with 17 rift zones and the disposal of nuclear waste in this area would be subject to geologic impact. I would hate to think of the consequences that leakage into the water aquifer would cause.

You are most welcome to build your home there but what would you plan for drinking water if it became contaminated? Your support of the disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca does not seem valid. Please remember that we are speaking in terms of centuries of possible irreversable contamination. You know, Ralph, once a person jumps off a building, there is no return.

Perhaps you have actually "brainwashed" yourself into believing what you have written and have not fully studied the effects of nuclear radiation on humans. It would befit you to "unbrainwash" yourself and do some honest reading in this direction. Book author or not, your support of nuclear is a poor excuse for a technology that is hazardous at best.

adrianakau2aol.com

Dear Adrian,

It's amazing ! ! You are quoting, almost word for word, the lies, exaggerations and scare tactics used by so many anti-nuke zealots who will say ANYTHING to stop, once again, the advance of nuclear power here in the U.S.

You say I have not fully studied the effects of nuclear radiation. Nothing could be further from the truth. By the way, have you ever visited a nuclear power plant? You should. I have, and it was an exciting experience. I have also felt the effects of nuclear radiation. I am alive today because more than 200 nuclear radiation pellets were inserted into my prostate, saving and extending my life. Add that to the fact once each year the FAA requires me to take a thallium treadmill examination in order to renew my flight license (ask anyone in nuclear medicine what thallium is.) I have been a pilot since I was 16 and losing my right to fly, even at 80 years old, would be a devastating blow to me. In simple terms I've received several hundred times as much nuclear radiation as anyone working in a nuclear power plant or living within a three mile radius of one. The reason for the annual examination is the fact that I have undergone 2 triple bypass surgeries and FAA regulations require me or anyone who has had heart surgery to prove annually that they are safe to fly, solo or otherwise. I fly the new Cirrus, the most exciting light plane in the world.

There are some very minimal hazards in building and operating a nuclear powder plant, but the actual total hazard is miniscule when compared with ANY other kind of power plant. If you take the time to visit my website click on videos at the top of the home page. One of the videos explains the storage of spent rods, and one is a CBS 60 Minutes segment on the French nuclear giant, Areva.

You will ultimately learn that nuclear power is not the "bogey man" that the anti-nuke zealots would like you to believe it is.

From your writing you appear to be a reasonably intelligent man. I have made the assumption that if you looked into the subject much deeper than you obviously have, you would quite soon join the rapidly growing ranks of environmentalists who have become dedicated, well informed, and active supporters of nuclear power. In other words, try it...you'll like it!

Best regards,

Ralph Andrews

PS Do not rely on nuclear scientists alone to learn the truth. There are many of them who are opposed to nuclear power. Instead consult nuclear engineers who have had years of experience working inside nuclear power plants. You won't find many, if any, in that category who are opposed to nuclear power. Quite the contrary...and I can put you in touch with several current and former nuclear engineers....if you're really interested.

I tend to agree with Joseph NeiI and Ralph Andrews that nuclear energy can be safe and green at the same time. I, back in the 80's was kind of disappointed with nuclear and it's limitations. But since that time I have come to see that new technology has made nuclear energy more desirable and it's radiation dangers have been overblown and exaggerated.

To find out more facts on nuclear go to World Nuclear Association: http://www.world-nuclear.org.

To find out what really happened at Chernobyl, look up this site- Chernobyl Legacy: http://www.chernobyllegacy.com/index.php?cat=3&sub=2.

I'm surprised that Joseph did not mention the Thorium powered reactors that can safely burn plutonium: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/

And then there's the IV generation of reactors which include the High Temperature Gas Reactors. They require only a lower grade of enriched uranium and are more efficient then present water cooled reactors. They use helium for coolant so a water source for cooling is not required. Test have been run that shows they are virtually melt down proof. They would extend uranium supplies by a much longer factor then present III generation reactors.

If the greenies are really concerned about AGW and environmental degradation of the planet then they should advocate zero population growth as the human carbon footprint overshadows any offset from renewable's. I for one think that CO2's GW effect is negligible. It's land use and natural cycles that are the primary drivers. Natural events are being wrongly linked to global warming as it's been made more of a recent issue and there are more technology to track storms and other weather events. Climatic events are of such long duration that people die before the reach their cycle ends and they were never properly tracked since the real inception of climate issues. It's become more of a politico euphemism rather than a true scientific study. I read about it all the time.

President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program was tragically misleading: fissionable atoms don't know the different between war and peace. The infrastructure and the academic training necessary to run nuclear power reactors translates all too easily into building nuclear weapons.

The key ingredient is fissionable U-238 or plutonium. Only nation states have been able to assemble the capital to build the production facilities required to produce these materials. Once you can produce enriched uranium, and have trained nuclear technologists, the path from nuclear power to nuclear weapons is fairly short, as we have now seen several times in world history.

In a sane world, humanity would be doing everything possible to shut down the entire nuclear industry, from the mines on up, and to vastly reduce the number of existing nuclear weapons.

To call for an energy policy requring a vast expansion in nuclear infrastructure is the height of irresponsibiliity in the world we live in today. Nothing could endanger the future of our species more than accelerating the production of fissionable materials and the further diffusion of nuclear technologies. We already see how powerful appeals to protect our country from "nuclear terrorism" can be. After 9/11, we can either have a little sense of the ferocious repression that governments would be willing to deploy if a non-state nuclear weapon were ever detonated anywhere in the world.

I am optimtic enough to believe that human beings are capable of recognizing this danger of nuclear proliferation, and that we can find other ways to meet our energy needs that do not involve putting us on such a certain path to the disaster of losing cities to nuclear terrorism.

Frankly, you give a weak argument. You don't even consider the new nuclear technologies that lessen the threat of the hijacking of nuclear fuel or byproducts. You guys just hark back to the bad ol' days of nuclear energy. I find your arguments absurd.

And besides, there's more danger from biological agents then nuclear dirty bombs. And then there's nano weapons technology that the Chinese are researching heavily. I find more danger from nuts like Kucinich who think that appeasement and withdrawing into some kind of sane idealistic cocoon will keep the terrorist's away.

It's like trying to eliminating crime by taking away guns from the police. The machete has killed over a million more people than any other weapon except perhaps the spear or sword, next to poor living standards.

Frankly, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. It's like trying to stop the flood after the dam has broke. We have never lived in a sane world, except in myopic idealists academia circles! If we had a sane world we would not need prisons or armed forces. Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Iran have the technology and there's no turning back. So the best approach is to take advantage of it and improve upon it, which nuclear researchers and engineers have been consistently doing. The links I provided consistently show that and the French and other countries are doing it, that the technology is sound and relatively risk free.

Perhaps in two decades there will be better technologies to replace nuclear fission but I only see them as local alternatives. When people see the negatives of so many touted free energy schemes they will realize that nuclear is the best option, the best value!

Uranium has to be enriched for WMD further than for fuel. Certain 'Breeders' are the only reactors that create more U238 or plutonium, which is why the USSR used the Light Water Carbon Moderated reactor design at Chernobyl, and it was cheap. Other than that, direct carbon fuel cells are a good alternative also. You just can't convert over to these new technologies on a politician's whim, technology does not stand still or favor one item over another, otherwise we would have super bright whale oil lanterns at Kmart.

But I do think that there should be good incentives for people to buy into more efficient products, where practical. But it boils down to intelligent choices and what you can afford. Here is one nuclear advocates choice in home efficiency:

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/dream-house.htm.

It's has very efficient technologies but I'm not sure if it can work everywhere for everyone. You can't mandate communism except by the point of a gun. And Mr Rodgers is dead also.

Nuclear is the most subsidiezed power in history. It uses millions of gallons of water and produces radio active waste for thousands of years. The uranium is mostly imported from Russia and the cost has gone way up in the 30 year nuclear has been in place.

Get the facts. Nuclear is a big mistake and has been for years. Check out the G8 summit reports on the real cost of Nuclear !

Only REnewables are good for the environment an the economy.

In the discussion above, Scottar is losing track of my principal point, which is that promoting the use of nuclear power, anywhere on the planet, promotes the acceleration of the single most dangerous threat to civilization, nuclear proliferation. The results of the detonation of even one Hiroshima-size nuclear weapon in one of the world's mega-cities are beyond reasonable accounting. Among other things, the crackdown on civil liberties would make the post-911 period look like a dust-up in a kindergarten sandbox.

I passionately believe that the risk of nuclear proliferation vastly exceeds any potential gain that nuclear-generated electricity might produce. The trade-offs are not commensurable. There are other ways to produce electricity. And there are other ways to gain the comfort and the services we want without necessarily requiring the generation of more electricity from any source, like simply requiring better insulation for refrigerators.

You cannot uncouple nuclear weapons from nuclear power. The atoms don't know the different. There is really only one technology here, nuclear technology, and more than 5 decades of trying to pretend otherwise has not made it so. How many more chances is the human race going to get to learn this lesson, before someone, whether a state actor or a non-state actor, turns the heart of one of the world's great cities into a thermonuclear plasma?

I have to agree with Richard Bell that the risk of harm from nuclear proliferation exceeds any potential gain.

Children are told not to play with fire because sooner or later they will get burned. I believe that the same rule applies to grown up people even leaders of nations when it comes to nuclear development.

Nuclear weapons in the form of warheads to penetrate tank armor have been in use during the Iraq war with terrible consequences for both sides. Who is to be responsible for the decison to use these devices so that all are harmed in the process? Yes, we have already seen that nuclear out of control is like opening Pandora's box.

The US has already admitted to being irresponsible in claims against Iran's nuclear development. We only give a reason to maintain our irresponsibility in this area by providing the excuse that nuclear will be good for developing electric power but we neglect to mention the side effects.

It is like the advertisment of pharmaceuticals on TV: "The side effects could be cancer, damage to the kidneys, harm to the liver and even death." Who are the doctors that are promoting the use of these drugs and is the cure worse than the ailment.

Nuclear is of the same ilk with the potential harm far out-weighing the benefit. The cure may kill the patient.

Yes. I agree with Richard.

adrianakau2aol.com