Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042302220_pf.html
By Robert Bryce
Sunday, April 25, 2010; B04
Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.
1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.
Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.
Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.
Denmark, the poster child for wind energy boosters, more than doubled its production of wind energy between 1999 and 2007. Yet data from Energinet.dk, the operator of Denmark's natural gas and electricity grids, show that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2007 were at about the same level as they were back in 1990, before the country began its frenzied construction of turbines. Denmark has done a good job of keeping its overall carbon dioxide emissions flat, but that is in large part because of near-zero population growth and exorbitant energy taxes, not wind energy. And through 2017, the Danes foresee no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation.
2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.
In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.
China controls between 95 and 100 percent of the global market in these elements. And the Chinese government is reducing its exports of lanthanides to ensure an adequate supply for its domestic manufacturers. Politicians love to demonize oil-exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, but adopting the technologies needed to drastically cut U.S. oil consumption will dramatically increase America's dependence on China.
3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.
In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.
The Chinese have also signaled their willingness to lose money on solar panels in order to gain market share. China's share of the world's solar module business has grown from about 7 percent in 2005 to about 25 percent in 2009.
Meanwhile, the very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.
Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.
Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge? Speaking of recharging, last June, the Government Accountability Office reported that about 40 percent of consumers do not have access to an outlet near their vehicle at home. The electric car is the next big thing -- and it always will be.
5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.
Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.
America's move toward a more service-based economy that is less dependent on heavy industry and manufacturing is driving this improvement. In addition, the proliferation of computer chips in everything from automobiles to programmable thermostats is wringing more useful work out of each unit of energy consumed. The United States will continue going green by simply allowing engineers and entrepreneurs to do what they do best: make products that are faster, cheaper and more efficient than the ones they made the year before.
Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His fourth book, "Power Hungry: The Myths of 'Green' Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future," will be out Tuesday, April 27.
Good article from Patrick Moore
This Earth Day, which celebrates the 40th year of its founding, is special for another reason beyond its anniversary date. On the topic of nuclear, 2010 is a good year for both the environment and world peace.
Earlier this year, US President Barack Obama announced an $8.5 billion loan guarantee to Georgia Power to support building two nuclear power plants, the first new US plants in 30 years. The President's February 16th announcement was perhaps the biggest boost for nuclear power generation since Earth Day was established in 1970.
Why is that good? In simple terms, every nuclear plant can be viewed as two fewer large coal-fired generators. That makes for large reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
In speaking about his administration's support of Plant Vogtle near Augusta, the President was clear: "Nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. It's that simple. This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars off the road."
Earlier this month, the President addressed the other side of nuclear technology at the Nuclear Security Summit, the largest gathering of world leaders in the US since the founding of the United Nations in 1945. Prior to the Summit, on April 8th, the President and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new strategic arms reduction treaty agreeing to reduce active nuclear weapons by 30 percent.
The next day, the two leaders announced an agreement to dispose of 34 tons of plutonium each for a total of 68 tons equal to 17,000 warheads. This plutonium was in dismantled warheads or was stockpiled to build new warheads.
Russia has agreed it will burn its plutonium in two fast neutron reactors to make electricity. It is not clear how the US will dispose of its plutonium. Ironically, the sole US fast reactor, a 400 Mw unit at Richland, Washington, was shut down in 1993 in the name of preventing nuclear proliferation.
Following a 1993 agreement, Russia continues to sell 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to the US to be "down-blended" for use in nuclear power reactors. All of this uranium is from dismantled Russian nuclear warheads. You would be forgiven for not being aware of this largely unreported fact that 50 percent of US nuclear energy, 10 percent of total US electricity, is being produced from this uranium. It is time the two good news stories of nuclear energy for peace and the environment and nuclear weapons disarmament for peace and the environment were more widely celebrated.
For me the path from swords to plowshares began in 1971 when I sailed on the first Greenpeace campaign to stop US hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. Greenpeace was born of the view that all-out nuclear war was the greatest threat to both civilization and the environment. President Nixon cancelled the hydrogen test program, and the H-bomb that was detonated on Amchitka Island that year was the last hydrogen bomb the US ever exploded. In retrospect it was a major turning point in the arms race and heralded the first US-Soviet SALT arms reduction talks in 1972.
On this 40th Earth Day I hope people recognize that we are moving in a positive direction by encouraging the peaceful use of nuclear technology and working to reduce the threat of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism. These twin accomplishments make 2010 the most significant year in decades of nuclear achievements.
Source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-moore/good-nuclear-in-bad-nucle_b_546705.html?view=print
Here's some new information from the "Iran developing nuclear weapons" side. Is this all true or another plot from some for a regime change?
From PJTV:
IRAN'S SECRET NUKE PROGRAM: CIA Agent Infiltrates Revolutionary Guard, Uncovers New Enrichment Site
While working as a double agent for the CIA, Reza Kahlili cozied up with Iran's Revolutionary Guard and discovered a secret uranium enrichment site hidden deep in the mountains of Northern Iran. He gives Roger L. Simon all the details, explaining exactly why the Mullahs can't be bargained with and will stop at nothing to gain nuclear weapons capabilities to start a religious war.
You can follow what he does on Twitter where you will find links to interviews
From "Reza Kahlili" web site:
REZA KAHLILI is the pseudonym of a former Iranian Revolutionary Guard member who worked undercover as a CIA agent for several years in the ‘80s and ‘90s.
He spent an idyllic childhood in Tehran, the capital of Iran, surrounded by a close-knit upper middle-class family and two spirited boyhood friends. The Iran of his youth allowed Reza to think and act freely, and even indulge a penchant for rebellious pranks in the face of the local mullahs.
His political and personal freedoms flourished while he continued his education in America during the ’70s. He returned to Iran shortly after the Revolution eager to help rebuild his country, honestly believing that freedom and democracy would prevail and lead his country into a glorious future.
Even though most Iranians had enjoyed varying degrees of success under the Shah, the ayatollah Khomeini’s message resonated with a population weary of oppression and desperate for the political choice denied them under the Shah. To this end, Reza joined the Revolutionary Guards, an elite force that served Khomeini.
Instead of finding a new beginning for his country, he discovered a tyrannical ayatollah bent on plunging Iran into a dark age of religious fundamentalism and causing his fellow countrymen to turn on each other. Shaken to his very core after witnessing the atrocities at Evin Prison, atrocities that hit very close to home, a shattered and disillusioned Reza embarked on a mission that would change his life forever. He returned to America and emerged as “Wally,” a spy for the CIA.
Counterintelligence, coded communications, escape tactics and evasion, dominated his new life. He risked exposure daily and after several close calls, he managed to leave Iran. His CIA activities continued in Europe for a few more years before he and his family finally moved to America.
After the 9/11 attack, Reza Kahlili activated a handful of sources within Iran and once again contacted the CIA. He continues as an active voice for a free Iran and works toward ending the thugocracy of the mullah’s regime. He has written several articles for various media expressing his opinions and hope for a free Iran.
He now lives in California.
Gentilly-2 : Des incidents passés sous silence | Mauricie | Radio-Canada.ca
Étant donné que les médias aiment les effets-chocs, je suis surpris de voir parler d'incidents que l'on verrait dans tout type d'industrie. Aucune mention de radio activité à la centrale dans les incidents citée.
Je serais curieux de voir ce type d'incidents dans les autres industries.. Font-elles les nouvelles?
Est-ce que les médias ont demandé la fin des mines et centrales au charbon, après les 25 morts dans une mine au États-Unis?
Est-ce que les nouvelles transmises par les médias de masse font preuve de transparence ou bien font preuve d'un choix très précis dicté par certains intérêts?
Commentaires?
Messages
Tous les commentaires
