Skip to main content

View Diary: So what do we do? (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Personally I'm ambivalent about Nuke power (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Siegel

    I don't have much of an opinion one way or another.  I also don't mind the notion of biomass. Coalitions being what they are, though....

    •  There is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Muskegon Critic, Odysseus

      issue of "industrial" biomass and what meaning might be from that.  Reality is that sustainable biomass at industrial scale is far better than the person who jumps in their Ford F-150 to drive 30 miles to use a gas chain saw to burn firewood in an inefficient fireplace.  Thus, an issue of degree and control.

      Yes, coalitions ... however, the 'nuclear power' phaseout is the first words re energy future, no?

      PS: Of course not 'blaming' / accusing you in comment but raising issue. I do understand coalition 'warfare' where it is often herding cats and the 'small' guy often has little say over where they're herded.

      Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

      by A Siegel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 07:53:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  About 50 small grassroots (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        A Siegel, Kay Observer2

        groups from around the US came together to talk about what a robust, clean energy future would look like...not just from an air standpoint, but also from an emissions and Water Use standpoint...

        ...climate change is already doing nasty stuff to agriculture and water supply, and that's going to get worse no matter what we do.

        So one thing we need to consider as we move toward a warming planet is our Water Supply. Hydrothermal power sources like coal, natural gas, nuclear...they suck up a LOT of water. Even once through cooling systems. They compete with agriculture and that's going to get worse.

        Not to mention that as our rivers and waterways heat up, they become less useful for power http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/...

        We need to adapt to what the world will be like as well as the world we want.

        •  Agree ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Muskegon Critic, Odysseus

          huge implications. And, the role of hydrothermal power sources merit attention. Retiring coal -- with the reduction of water use in mining/transport as well -- does a good amount for reducing that water use.  More important, on direct water issue, is better agricultural practices.

          With, of course, nightmarish amounts of water for fracking and other 'new' fossil foolish extraction practices that can pay more for water than farmers can.

          And ...

          I agree with you / the group about the need for systems-of-systems thinking/approaches, just questioning whether 2030 is an appropriate target for a no-nuke power sector. Much prefer to have that 20% of low/no carbon nuke running in 2030 and no coal than to have that nuclear power retired w/a good share of the coal plants still operating.

          Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

          by A Siegel on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 09:43:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site