brettbh

>>Invest more in renewable energy (which is not just wind farms or hydro-plants)<< See the scenarios in the document to which you linked. Each shows that it would be a substantial number of years before renewable energy can substantially replace dirty energy. Do we have that much time? And do you know what percentage of Sweden's land area would need to be dedicated to producing renewable energy in order to completely meet the country's needs? >>and energy-efficiency laws and policies.<< Something which, if you were to do it in any meaningful way, would result in you being voted out of office pretty damned quickly!

And what about the Conisholme wind farm incident? Was it really due to an alien crash? Or could it be part of an oil/nuclear industry conspiracy?

New miracle diet! Lose half your body weight in 14 days without eating less or exercise!

See #5. Do you know anything about the work of the Swedish Advanced Bovine Bothering Academy, Simon?

Fittest? Or fattest?

Ok, Simon. How about a game of let's pretend? Let's pretend that you're elected to be the president of the good ol' US or A. Your leading scientists tell you that you need to do something to reduce GHG emissions - and fast. Faced with real-world constraints (namely, the need for your intended actions to be approved by the legislature), what do you do? Do you attempt to introduce a bill that would enable government to compulsorily purchase enormous tracts of land on which to build wind turbines and solar panels, ruining ecosystems in the process? Do you destroy habitats by building hydro-plants? Or ... ?

We have to travel about 100 km before we can get coverage and so let the contracts expire expired when we moved here. And I must say, I don't miss it in the slightest!

Really? Well, that makes it about as useful as a cell phone in these here parts!

That phrase invariably brings an image of Ann Coulter to mind.

>>But my point is, if climate change is happening - why is that I have to wear a hat eh?<< I can only assume it's from a Canuck.

I tried the "clothes line" without much success. I suspended our laundered clothes on the device but, within 60 seconds, they became as rigid as steel sheets. The clothes softened-up once brought inside, but then became damp again. Maybe I didn't follow the instructions correctly ....

Click.

Sadly, you may well be right. But let's hope otherwise!

To reduce GHGs, we need to spend. Decommissioning coal-burning plants and replacing them with clean energy plants shall will be extremely expensive - no matter which source of alternative energy is used.

Spend enough money, and we could replace every coal-burning plant with a nuclear plant within 4 to 5 years. How long do you think it will (realistically) be before we are able to replace fossil fuel energy (80% of what we use) with renewable energy?

>>Uneven Development and Northern Imperialism in the making of Today’s Ecological Crisis<< Should that read, "Uneven Development and Northern Imperialism IS the making of Today’s Ecological Crisis"? This >>An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year.<< And >>Al Gore said, during the annual World Economic Forum Meeting in 2008, that you can’t solve climate change or poverty in the developing world “without dealing with the otherâ€<< Could be said to be somewhat contradictory. Were we to create global equality, Bangladeshis would be using as much energy as Brits - and that certainly wouldn't help the climate crisis. Or maybe the solution is to force more people into poverty? Capitalism is not the cause of our environmental problems - no matter what economic model were to be adopted, we'd still be driving cars and burning coal to meet our energy needs. That said, capitalism does act as an obstacle to our being able to find a solution to our problems. As I have said previously, we need to start doing what's best for the environment and not what's best for the budget - and that's in direct opposition to capitalism. >>And I don’t believe that if we reject our modern world we can reach ecological harmony.<< What do you mean by "ecological harmony." Zero impact? Preserving that status quo? There really is no such a thing as ecological harmony. Each and every species changes and contributes to its surrounding environment - and man is no different (except for the fact that he has a bigger impact!). We have - and shall continue to - impact our surroundings and impact other species. Woodland will be cleared to make way for new cities and agriculture. Solar, wind and hydro energy production shall impact surrounding ecosystems. Some species shall increase in number, some shall decline and some shall become extinct. This is an absolutely inevitability. There is no way that 6.7 billion people - and 1.5 million more each week - can be on the planet without substantially impacting the environment.

>>You end up paying more than the amount of energy you actually get out from it.<< No, initial constructions costs are certainly extremely high, but when those costs are amortised, nuclear energy is similarly priced (per KWh) to coal and hydro. The costs vary, of course, depending on the nature of the construction and the availability/cost of the fuel. In some instances, it's cheaper to produce with either hydro or coal than nuclear; in others, coal is the cheapest option; in others, it's nuclear. >>It takes too long to construct these nuclear plants.<< They can be built reasonably speedily. >>Also, nuclear energy is not an renewable source.<< Which is why we need to invest in projects such as ITER and Harvard's Clean Energy Project. >>That is why I hope, and think, that people and governments are starting to realise what a win-win situation renewable energy is for everyone. It will create a stable source of energy, create millions of new high-tech green jobs while helping to fight global warming.<< ... and have an emormous environmental impact. What you seem to be missing is that, with current technology, there is no way that we replace the energy produced by coal-burning plants with clean energy without radically altering the landscape. How much space do you think should be committed to wind turbines and solar panels? How many rivers should be diverted/damned? >>I dont think its up to you, the older generation<< I wish I could object to that comment!

The Reliant Robin was decades ahead of its time!

>>You glossed over a key point that Simon made: nuclear cost is triple current rates!<< Intentionally so. Because it's riddled with errors and factually incorrect. Were nuclear energy to be 3x the cost of the alternatives, do you really think that there'd be more than 400 nuclear power plants in operation today? The fact is that nuclear energy costs roughly the same as coal et al. As for the author of that report ... well, who the heck is this guy (Craig A. Severance) anyway? He's clearly not somebody who knows much about nuclear energy production. And who, exactly, commissioned that report? ExxonMobil? No, it couldn't have been them - they'd have bought somebody with a bit more credibility!

But how's it any greener than composting the old tree and planting a new tree? The petrol used by the truck in which he collects them (I assume that he doesn't transport them in a wheelbarrow or carry them on his back like a sherpa) probably makes this a much less green option than composting!

Simon says: >>A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates!<< To repeat: we need to forget about economics. We need to start doing what's best for the environment, not what's best for the bottom line. >>Nuclear Energy is Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective and Will Worsen Climate Change<< Yup, there are risks associated with nuclear energy production, but there have only been 4 minor accidents since 2000. Cars and sports account for way more deaths than nuclear energy production. The fact is that increasing nuclear energy production is the only way that we can substantially and speedily reduce GHG emissions. The comment in your signature: >>For the same investment, wind generates 5 times the jobs and 2.3 times the power as a nuclear reactor<< Yup, but to meet even a small proportion of current energy needs, you'd need to cover an absolutely enormous amount of space with wind turbines (to meet completely meet current US consumption, you'd need to cover the whole of Texas). To replace the energy produced by Canada's nuclear plants with hydroelectricity, you'd need to damn an area that was roughly the same size as the Province of Ontario. These are simply not realistic options. Facts: 1. Scientists say we need to substantially reduce GHG emissions. And soon. 2. Energy consumption shall not decrease any time soon. 3. Roughly 80% of our energy is produced by burning gas, oil and coal. 4. We cannot realistically meet our energy needs with energy from renewable sources at this point in time. What do you think we should do? Keep on burning coal while we debate how much space to commit to wind turbines and solar panels? Keep on burning coal while compulsory land purchases (all those solar panels have to go somewhere) are contested in the courts? Keep on burning coal while we hope for advances in renewable energy technology? Keep on burning coal while we encourage people to use less energy? What do you think we should do, Simon? MountainHiker says: >>"environmentally-friendly" is not going to be the deciding issue, the answer is that we should be doing both. Solar makes sense in the West where they have more sunshine days and nuclear makes more sense in the east and northwest(more cloudy days). Geothermal energy is also is coming into play but you are not going to cut out the coal-burning plants anytime soon.<< Yup, we should be doing both. Wind, solar et al energy has excellent potential, but the fact is that it's not going to be able to replace the energy produced by coal and oil burning plants any time soon. We are not going to cover Connecticut with solar panels and Texas with wind turbines. It's simply not going to happen. So that means that we either keep on burning coal while gradually increasing the proportion of our energy that comes from clean sources. Or we replace our coal burning plants with nuclear plants - immediately eliminating energy production related emissions - and then work on developing and enhancing renewable energy technology. Yup, there's a risk with nuclear energy, but it's a risk we need to take if we want to be able to substantially reduce GHG emissions any time soon. >>The enviro-nuts are at the far left of the environmental movement in the US and have never like nuclear power.<< Yup, but those enviro-nuts need to get real. Global warming came to the attention of the masses a couple of decades ago, but what's happened during the years since? Not much at all really. We have made no real progress towards either reducing energy consumption (which has actually increased each year) or substantially reducing our reliance on gas, coal and oil. And it's a trend which looks set to continue. There are no government plans or schemes which will substantially reduce energy consumption, and there is not the slightest chance that we'll soon be able to produce enough renewable energy to be able to substantially reduce our reliance on gas, coal and oil.

The US could completely eliminate energy production related emissions by: 1. Replacing coal-burning plants with nuclear plants; or 2. Covering the whole of Connecticut with solar panels. Which option do you think is the most environmentally-friendly?

Is this really a greener option? What's the benefit of replanting "used" trees as opposed to composting them and planting new ones instead?

>>and oh it sits in the middle of a desert so "wildlife" is not an issues here.<< Desert ecosystems are as important as any other ecosystems. >>The point is that in order for the switch to be made to more environmentally-friendly power, the cost had to come down to where it was on a par with coal etc. and now it has. Solar is always better than Nuclear and in this case I bet is much cheaper.<< But is it more environmentally-friendly? To produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant, a solar plant requires considerably more space. How much of our desert ecosystems do you think we should cover in solar panels? Calculate the GHGs produced by the manufacturing/construction process and divide that by the life expectancy of the plant (or the panels). Which has the smaller number? Nuclear or solar? And we really do need to start looking beyond the whole cost thing. So what if option A is cheaper than option B? If option B has a more environmentally-friendly outcome than option A, then option B is the one we should choose. When we're sick, we want the best and most effective treatment, not the cheapest treatment. We need to start thinking about environmental health in the same terms.

French, Germans and Americans - they'd be the least missed ;-) But seriously, we need to: Enforce some form of population control; Replace coal-burning plants with nuclear plants while we work on a better option. Realistically, this is the only way that we can achieve a substantial reduction in our emissions in the short-term; Make massive investments in R&D in order to discover cleaner - and viable - alternatives for energy production and transportation. For example, enormous sums should be committed to projects such as ITER; Disregard economics. We need to start doing what's best for the environment, not what's best for the budget. Legislate to reduce energy consumption (goodbye Las Vegas!).