EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Rockefeller needs thank you
by Jim Sconyers 12 Apr '11

12 Apr '11

Forwarded from WV Sierra Club webpage <below>. Senator Rockefeller voted right - to continue to enable the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. Please call and thank him. 202-224-6472 "Senator" Manchin voted wrong - to take away the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Please call and let him know you are disappointed that he feels burning West Virginia coal is more important than protecting the health of all humans and the future of the Planet. 202-224-3954 "Our Senator Rockefeller voted against removing the power from the EPA to regulate Greenhouse gases. I believe this is a time we need to call and thank him for taking this action, and remember our other senator who voted to take this power away from the EPA." Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

2 1

Fwd: Clean Energy Webinar Invite
by Paul Wilson 08 Apr '11

08 Apr '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Verena Owen <verena_owen(a)prodigy.net> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:00 PM Subject: Clean Energy Webinar Invite To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Friends, We hope you can join us for our first Beyond Coal Webinar on Monday, April 11 at 8 PM ET /7 CT/ 5 MT/ 5 PT. Members of the Beyond Coal Campaign's leadership team will present how the Campaign is working to replace coal with clean energy and energy efficiency. There will be an overview, a presentation and time for Q and A. You need to register in advance and space is limited! Please go here to reserve your seat: *https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/530765040* After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar. PRESENTERS: Mary Anne Hitt, Director, National Coal Campaign. Vanessa Pierce, Deputy Director, Beyond Coal Campaign Verena Owen, Volunteer co-lead Dick Fiddler, coal leadership team member TECHNICAL ISSUES: First time Webinar participants: Don't worry, this is easy! Please log into the webinar 5-10 minutes before the call to ensure that you are able to see the presentation when we begin. In testing the system, we found that Google Chrome required some additional effort. We recommend logging in using Firefox or Internet Explorer. Finally, if you are unable to get the technology to work, you can simply join the conference call and follow the presentation manually. We will send out the call-in number shortly before the call. System Requirements PC-based attendees Required: Windows® 7, Vista, XP or 2003 Server Macintosh®-based attendees Required: Mac OS® X 10.4.11 (Tiger®) or newer See you Monday, Mary Anne, Vanessa, Verena and Dick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Fwd: Explore Appalachia's Enchanted Flatlands.....
by James Kotcon 01 Apr '11

01 Apr '11

You will want to open the photo too! JBK >>> Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt(a)sierraclub.org> 4/1/2011 12:47 PM >>> Happy April Fool’s Day!! Exploring Appalachia's Enchanted Flatlands April 1, 2012 Photo: Alice McKeown Trip Number: 124001a Price: $4,111 (12-15) Deposit: $400 Capacity: 15 Leader: Don Blankenship Highlights: · Explosions · Toxic rubble · Buried streams · Monster trucks & exhaust Includes: · Guides, cooks, lobbyists, and all equipment for the ride · Ride in stretch Hummer · Non-local, factory-farmed food Itinerary | Accommodations | Equipment | References | Leader The Trip Photo: Alice McKeown This exhilarating, once-in-a-lifetime foray will take you into the ripped-open heart of some of the most recently exposed scenery in Appalachia. Your friendly trip leader will provide nonstop tutorials on the hidden beauty (and intense profitability) of a once-lush mountain that's just been blown to smithereens. In your two days amid the magnificent rubble, you will experience the awesome silence of a newly buried stream. Gaze in disbelief as a toxic rainbow slick dances atop a sun-dappled waste pond. Playfully dive for cover as a herd of monster coal trucks rumbles past. And then, just when you think you've seen it all, witness the wonder of an explosion lofting ancient and precious forest habitat into the bright Kentucky sky. The shockwave will reverberate forever in your soul. Up to Top Itinerary Day 1: We meet you at the airport in our special stretch Hummer and travel directly to the site of a thriving mountaintop-removal coal mine. The drive itself is often a thrill as we plow through a line of hippie protestors at the gate. Some of them are pretty smelly, so keep those windows rolled up! Once inside, no lollygagging. We immediately don our hazmat suits and wade into the waste pond, a rich stew of heavy (we prefer "precious") metals like arsenic, lead, mercury, and selenium. The day ends with a long, hot shower and scrub-down in our relaxing decontamination chamber. Day 2: We journey to the site of a stream that's been forever preserved beneath the rich overburden produced by ripping apart pristine forest habitat. It's not an arduous journey, because such waterways abound: more than 2,000 miles of degraded streams in Appalachia alone! Many people weep with joy at the sight of this cornucopia of environmental destruction. Getting There The trip begins with pick-up from Frankfort, KY. The leader will provide guidance and contact information for a recommended travel agent who can arrange flights from your home city once you are approved for the trip. Up to Top Accommodations and Food Photo: Alice McKeown Double-occupancy rooms are included with the trip. Our hotel features rooms with private baths, hot showers, and decontamination facilities. It's centrally located within walking distance of formerly hilly terrain. Up to Top Trip Difficulty If you're not much of a hiker, don't worry: All mountainous terrain has been repurposed and horizontally optimized for retail and commercial development. Up to Top Equipment and Clothing A detailed equipment list will be sent to approved trip participants. Hazmat suit will be provided, but you will need to bring your own waterproof and chemical-resistant footwear as we will be fording some seriously degraded waterways. Up to Top References Books: The following books should give you a feel for what the trek will be like. Your local library is also a good resource. a.. Barton, Joe, Cry, the Beloved Mountaintop Removal b.. Donahue, Tom, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Guide to Winning Friends and Influencing Politicians c.. Gingrich, Newt, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Mercury in My Water Maps a.. Available at any service station. Be sure not to get a topographical map -- it will be out-of-date after the first dynamite blast. Conservation Coal is not yet critically endangered in America, but failure to destroy the mountain habitats that shelter it could lead to its extinction. Already, many majestic old-economy power plants on which coal depends have been shut down because they were unable to adapt to clean-energy standards. Coal extraction is also seriously threatened by clean-water standards, public-health concerns, and common sense. Up to Top Trip Price This trip requires a $200 per-person deposit. An additional payment of $300 per person is due six months prior to trip departure. International trip prices are subject to change and are based on double-occupancy or group accommodations as described above. Single rooms may not be available or may cost more than the listed price. If you have any questions regarding double occupancy, please contact the trip leader. See the How to Apply for an Outing section for more details on registering for this trip and details about our Reservation and Cancellation Policy. The payment of a deposit does not confirm you as a member on the trip. Participants must be approved by the trip leader. After signing up for this trip, you will be sent a confirmation packet containing approval materials (Participant Approval Questionnaire, Medical Form, Liability Release Form). Each applicant (including those on the waitlist) must fill out these forms and promptly mail them to the trip leader. The leader will review the approval materials and notify you of your acceptance in a timely manner. The Sierra Club accurately and fairly budgets and prices our trips. However, unforeseen costs such as devaluation of the dollar compared to other currencies and fuel surcharges assessed by our international providers may necessitate adjustment in trip price. We will make every effort to mitigate and absorb these fees. If a price increase is necessary, however, you will have 14 days after announcement to cancel without penalty. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Refuting the case for shale gas being better for global warming
by Beth Little 27 Mar '11

27 Mar '11

http://marcelluseffect.blogspot.com/2011/03/shale-gas-wells-have-bigger-carb on.html

1 0

Fw: New Record for German Renewable Energy in 2010
by Jim Sconyers 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Edward Mainland <emainland(a)COMCAST.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Fri, March 25, 2011 2:16:34 PM Subject: New Record for German Renewable Energy in 2010 New Record for German Renewable Energy in 2010 One-Quarter Million New Solar-Electric Systems Installed New World Record: 7,400 MW of Solar Photovoltaics Installed in One Year Renewable Electricity Penetration More than 30% of Supply on February 7th New Renewables Near 17% of Electricity Supply Renewable Generation Greater than Natural Gas--Closing in on Nuclear March 24, 2011 By Paul Gipe As the nuclear reactor accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant continues to dominate the world's attention, Germany has quietly broken more renewable energy records. The conservative government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, struggling to stay ahead of public attitudes toward nuclear power in the run-up to regional elections, issued its annual report on the contribution of renewable energy to the German energy market in 2010. Wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, solar cells, and biogas digesters now provide nearly 17% of Germany's electricity. Meanwhile, the German network agency (Bundesnetzagentur) issued its final update on the installation of solar photovoltaics (solar PV) in 2010. The results are nothing short of startling and will add fuel to the heated debate about how countries such as Japan can meet their electricity needs without reliance on nuclear power. In the immediate aftermath of the Japanese nuclear accident, Germany's Merkel closed two reactors permanently, and another five temporarily. She also called on her government to revisit its controversial decision to extend the life of its aging reactors. The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi are 40 years old and their license to operate had been extended by the Japanese government. The reports on the rapid growth of renewable energy in Germany may give Merkel's government the cover it needs to reverse direction on nuclear power, and by doing so reverse its faltering political fortunes. Germany uses an advanced system of feed-in tariffs to pay for renewable energy generation, and has an aggressive target of meeting 39% of its electricity supply with renewable energy by 2020. Its system of advanced renewable tariffs has enabled Germany to exceed its 2010 target of 12.5% by a wide margin. New Renewables Near 17% of Electricity Supply in 2010 The German Ministry for the Environment and Reactor Safety reports that in 2010 renewable energy generated more than 100 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity, providing nearly 17% of the 600 TWh of supply. Wind turbines and biomass plants delivered more than 70% of renewable generation. Biogas plants powered with methane from manure alone generated nearly 13 TWh. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp In 2010 renewables generated more electricity in Germany than gas-fired power plants--nearly as much as hard coal--and are fast approaching the contribution of nuclear power. 7,400 MW of Solar PV Installed in One Year Doubling their previous record, the German solar PV industry installed 7,400 MW from nearly one-quarter million individual systems in 2010, according to the finial report by the Bundesnetzagentur. In December alone, Germans installed more than 1,000 MW of solar PV, enough solar capacity to generate 1 TWh of electricity under German conditions. While they represent only half that installed in June 2010, the December installations were 50% greater than total solar PV installed in the USA in 2010 and as much as that rumored to have been installed in Japan last year. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Nearly 700 MW from some 100,000 systems were installed in a size range typical of that installed by German homeowners. An astounding 3,700 MW from more than 135,000 systems were installed in a size range representative of that installed by farmers and other small businesses. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Another 1,700 MW were installed in a size class characteristic of small businesses and large industrial rooftops. Large, multi-megawatt systems comprised 1,400 MW of capacity or nearly one-fifth of total capacity installed in 2010. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Renewable Electricity More than 30% of Supply on February 7th A further sign that renewable energy has come of age as a commercial generating technology, certainly in Germany, is that penetration of wind and solar reached more than 30% of supply on February 7, 2010, according to data posted publicly by Germany's electricity transmission exchange, EEX. The exchange posts online the amount of capacity of conventional generation, wind generation, and solar PV generation delivered to the grid by time of day. On Monday, February 7, 2011, the combined real-time wind and solar generation varied from a high of 32% of supply at midnight to a low of 18% of supply at sunrise. Solar PV generation delivered more than 8,000 MW for the two-hour period from just before noon until 2:00 pm, reaching a peak of nearly 8,500 MW at noon. During the same time period, conventional sources contributed 50,000 MW and wind delivered another 10,000 MW to the network. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp There is 16,500 MW of solar PV capacity now on line in Germany. Solar insolation is weakest in mid winter, and highest in mid summer. The solar industry's February 7th performance bodes well for this coming summer, when solar PV can be expected to break new records. In other observations: • PV produced 13% of supply at noon on February 7, 2011, • Wind reached nearly 1/3 of generation at midnight, • Wind and solar's combined 18,500 MW at noon met 29% of demand, • PV was producing 1/2 of its nameplate in mid winter, and • Wind was producing near its total installed capacity. With the Japanese nuclear calamity fresh in everyone's mind and upcoming elections staring the government in the face, the success of Germany's rapid development of renewable energy may give Chancellor Merkel's conservative government the flexibility it needs to weather the nuclear crisis. It would not be surprising to find the government proposing an even more aggressive pace of renewable energy development than that seen in 2010. -End- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Fwd: Nuclear: What You Need to Know
by Paul Wilson 25 Mar '11

25 Mar '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Architecture 2030 <info(a)architecture2030.org> Date: Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM Subject: Nuclear: What You Need to Know To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com [image: Architecture 2030]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=0mv6EWcdLZj68g%2Fxr8W…> Architecture 2030<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bB6PrmvnE%2BKSPoG%2BM…> about us <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XK247inBtnFAi0Vjq1VkP…> hot topics <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=AtBcJbrn1cvBGvzY2TNYO…> e-news <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1m9VccphoiGb3sGdZ2JWn…> publications <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=mAch5C7c%2BkCmgmdyWw2…> videos<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RMqR%2Fb0xggbM8DO%2BK…> faq <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=EYDrB7%2FHfoZWxFmwkaE…> contact <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=1vYho2%2FhSEvvnSmsiAj…> Originally Released: March 22, 2011 Subscribe/ Unsubscribe<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ymF9qvOWZfKrVpq6tskZw…> Printer Friendly Version<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6CP4RdW8swpOiOMio9jtl…> Nuclear Energy: Fact Check How Much Does the United States Use? With the nuclear reactor crisis in Japan continuing to unfold, an important discussion has been taking place in the U.S. about the current and future role of nuclear energy and our aging nuclear reactors. We have noticed that in the media, there is sometimes a gap between what is being stated as fact, and what is actually fact. For example, prominent U.S. officials have stated recently, *"We get 20 percent of our energy right now in the United States from nuclear power."* In fact, nuclear power is responsible for 8.6% of total U.S. energy consumption. Twenty point seven percent of total U.S. *electricity consumption*, including electrical energy generation and transmission losses, is attributed to nuclear power. The 20.7%, or 8.39 QBtu, is made up of 2.19 QBtu of electricity delivered to the place of use, and 6.2 QBtu of energy losses from generation (waste heat) and transmission. The following graph illustrates total U.S. energy consumption (delivered energy and electrical energy losses from generation and transmission), total U.S. electricity consumption, and the total U.S. energy consumption attributed to nuclear power: <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=vKNEdO6maKsuEPi03uxhr…> *Assumptions:* Average U.S. nuclear plant efficiency is calculated at 32.6% (Source: EIA [3]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GQYN8E27vJWR2zEqR13po…> [4]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=oRB3qayuB%2FG6NL4Rw6A…>), and transmission losses at 6.5% (Source:EIA [5]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ATry0JfAUjlPoKeFXCdPG…>). ------------------------------ More to Know About U.S. Nuclear Energy: - There are 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. (Source: NEI) [1]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nh%2FY8RvUqNRDBIiHgR1…> - The 104 reactors have a net summer capacity of 100,755 MW. (Source: Architecture 2030 & NEI) [2]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=8kcxrHt3lt1DZly%2BTp%…> - Nuclear energy provides 3.1% of total U.S. delivered energy; 8.6% of total U.S. energy consumption is attributed to nuclear energy. (Source: Architecture 2030 & EIA) [3]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=aWwl2SWKud4xQwGUw%2FG…> [4]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=z6Ne4HdBBrdR3nPm3HyqC…> [5]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jQmRUVjKBqW%2BNKNkuHB…> - Nuclear energy provides 17.1% of total U.S. delivered electricity; 20.7% of total U.S. electricity consumption is attributed to nuclear energy (Source: Architecture 2030 & EIA) [3]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=oomq%2BcnKOIXteMDssme…> [4]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=4YY1Ue31fMQ761W0b%2FU…> [5]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=W%2BAqFUnlSdjhmA7YmIl…> - It takes approximately thirty-seven 1000MW nuclear reactors to produce one Quad (quadrillion Btu) of delivered energy. (Source: EIA, Table 6.1.2) [6]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2FadmSaV1WU4uLSLOiyQ…> - The last nuclear reactor to be built in the U.S. was Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee in June 1996 (1,123 MW). (Source: NEI) [1]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=C%2FSCBhfW0TcZIUuNwfH…> - Of the 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S., 4.8% are older than 40 years, 38.5% are older than 35 years, and over half are older than 30 years. (Source: Architecture 2030 & EIA, Table 3) [7]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Nd5z0X0vb2K2fQHpFT84P…> - Nuclear reactors in the U.S. are licensed to operate for 40 years. Owners can file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for operating extensions. (Source EIA) [8]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=wKOyglcv%2FuA0Rr4ok1u…> - It costs approximately $300-500 million to decommission a nuclear plant. (Source: NEI) [9]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ZSN%2B2z6uHODW2LdyfrX…> - There are 13 potential reactors that are currently under review for a new commercial license. (Source: EIA) [10]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SGjWqBw0UL0OdkwHBc%2B…> - The EIA estimates that the initial capital cost (overnight cost) of a new reactor is $5,339 per kW, or $5.3 billion for a 1000 MW reactor. Financing cost, long construction periods, and escalating costs can push the total cost well above the overnight cost. (Source: EIA, Table 2) [11]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RM4MhUL92qmGYjQpzAtAq…> - Subsidies for ongoing nuclear reactors range from 0.74 - 4.16 c/kWh for investor owned utilities (IOUs) and 1.53 - 5.77 c/kWh for publicly owned utilities (POUs). Subsidies for new reactors range from 5.01 - 11.42 c/kWh for IOUs and 4.20 - 8.68 c/kWh for POUs. At the higher end of these ranges, the subsidies exceed the value of the energy produced. The subsidies come from a wide range of sources: federal loan guarantees (Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act, EPACT, 2005), accelerated depreciation, subsidized borrowing costs, property tax abatements, depletion allowances for uranium mining, under-priced water for cooling, and production tax credits. In addition, the federal government helps significantly with security, risk, waste, and decommissioning management. (Source: UCS) [12]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=TuEEztkQPgAlD%2FAW3WA…> - The IAEA estimates that approximately 20 percent of nuclear reactors around the world are currently operating in areas of significant seismic activity. (Source: IAEA) [13]<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=znxVnMMAu8O8KI7t9Utyw…> ------------------------------ *Reported by Architecture 2030 Researchers:* *Vincent Martinez* *Director of Research* *Francesca Desmarais* *Principal Researcher* Upcoming talks with Ed Mazria: Washington, DC – April 18 AIA DC / CUA Lecture<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JEKx4zy%2Fx7cuedfwozK…> 12pm. The Catholic University of America, Koubek Auditorium. $25 members. $40.00 non-members. Free for students and AIA+2030 participants. Registration required. Learn more<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=3RHQNuvLmlNbGCjbZs6OR…> New York, NY – April 20 AIA NY Committee on the Environment / Cooper Union<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=RgDL3aU6W9OYTBIttcl95…> 6:30pm. Cooper Union, Great Hall. Free for AIA members and Cooper Union students with RSVP and Membership ID at the door. $5 for all other students. $15 for general public. Learn more<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=veuoD%2Bxzc6XyndXzliW…> Vancouver, BC – May 26 Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) *2011 Festival of Architecture*<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=kss3UjpjLd6RAE4UyiqQt…> 7pm. Simon Fraser University – Djavad Mowafaghian Cinema. Free and open to the public. Learn more<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YID0Bl5Tr7z%2FuMu0h1X…>(also see below) <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5QwPaeaYnZZhqt0bHxzpH…> Edward Mazria Inducted as Honorary Fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, Delivering Convocation Keynote at *2011 Festival of Architecture.*<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=lv7UKps7sNP4N0nJhXnfl…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=P5MB%2FZ%2FBDW%2FcBoT…> Sign Up Here.<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KQgsetW8DHBPNZQmvsqqJ…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Gmr7rEbLlUWm0dCdVZVbt…> The Latest Climate Science From Our Top Scientific Organizations.<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WfqKJuJInLneYxQ4i%2FX…> . . . For the latest updates from Architecture 2030, go to the Hot Topics<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=z5tcQxOHRPypFkIwaEOd%…>section of our website. . . . Comments and suggestions for future Architecture 2030 E–News issues should be sent to: info(a)architecture2030.org Architecture 2030 607 Cerrillos Road Santa Fe, NM 87505 www.architecture2030.org<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=9A1vaOSfEZNEd76VeLru7…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=PHoigPF1HLKGkYr4zLDy5…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Q67WAzZzsP0btrr1NF64Y…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=crUl2dMzgAJ4Kb60qfQ0J…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pcZpWUmh3FolDXxgqBOgK…> <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2YxdkKGTfpllJp2NH%2F5…> Having trouble viewing this email? - Click here to view an online version.<http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=WWax5pJ6bHnorfmfU9S4g…> Help us spread this important news by sending this E-News Bulletin to a colleague or friend. -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Surely We Can Do Better than Nuclear Socialism
by James Kotcon 22 Mar '11

22 Mar '11

I had not heard this statistic before (in the paragraph below), but it sure resonates with Republicans like me. Enjoy. JBK "Vulnerability lessons are not new. After World War II German military leaders pointed out that the U.S. could have ended the War two years sooner by bombing the big coal power plants. Instead the allies were bombing individual industrial sites like steel mills, failing to recognize that the big coal plants powered 80% of Germany’s manufacturing. In contrast, Japan’s electric power was provided by a huge number of small dams that were not attractive targets for attack because no single one was crucial for the power system of the nation." ---------- Forwarded message ---------- ------------------------------ Surely We Can Do Better than Nuclear Socialism<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DalyNews/~3/ICIEJIYZCAI/?utm_source=feedburn…> Posted: 21 Mar 2011 08:28 PM PDT by Brent Blackwelder They were in the news a half century ago when they were called “too cheap to meter.” Now “absolutely safe” nuclear reactors are once again in the news. As the horrifying scene in Japan unfolds this month, many politicians and media pundits are acting as if the only electricity choice for the U.S. is nuclear reactors or coal power plants. This is a false choice. A sustainable economy requires a sustainable energy supply, one that is not subject to the vulnerabilities of big central energy systems. A steady state economy would run on a decentralized set of renewable energy sources that is clean and resilient. It would be an economy powered by the sun, the wind, the natural heat content of the Earth, and other renewable sources. Advanced designs for where we live and how we travel would be a key part of this energy transformation. For example, buildings would be designed to generate power rather than requiring external energy supplies for cooling and heating. And let’s not forget about conservation – we need to set up the economy such that it uses less energy in the first place. The energy system that would run a steady state economy does not have the severe security problems that plague current systems, nor would it require massive subsidies in the form of liability limits, loan guarantees, externalization of health damages, etc. You don’t have to worry about a solar or wind “spill” contaminating the air, land and water; you don’t need liability caps for a wind farm or for solar collectors on roofs; and finally, you don’t need to bill consumers (instead of stockholders or investors) in advance for a nuclear reactor that may never be completed. The strength and resilience of decentralized power, its superior employment intensity, and the potential for community involvement are all features that make a different energy model very attractive. Various European nations such as Spain, Germany, and Denmark have demonstrated the huge potential of wind and solar power, as has the state of Texas in the case of wind with 9,700 megawatts installed. But look at the powerful forces today pushing nuclear reactor construction in the southeastern U.S. and obstructing the clean energy path of the future. Even after the terrible nuclear meltdown in Japan, two big southern utilities, South Carolina Electric & Gas and Georgia Power, announced that they are not pausing to consider some lessons to be learned before proceeding full speed ahead with four new reactors. To pay for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power has begun billing its Georgia customers this month for the intended construction. Ironically, the proposed new reactors being billed to Georgia consumers are intended to supply customers in Florida. Consumers and taxpayers are bearing all the risks, not investors. The energy systems used to power the global economy are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events, sabotage, terrorism, and war. The Japanese catastrophe this month certainly brings to mind the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979. But the nuclear and fossil fuel industries have supplied many less well-known disasters. A brief review of some of the accidents will accentuate the difference between the polluting energy of today’s economy and the clean energy future that would, by its very nature, avoid these messes: - In July of 1979, at the Navajo community of Church Rock, New Mexico, an earthen dam at United Nuclear Corporation’s uranium mill broke, releasing 95 million gallons of radioactive wastewater into the Rio Puerco. The spill sent contaminants over 100 miles downstream. This unpublicized spill is estimated to have contained over triple the amount of radiation (curies) that the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor released in the very same year. - Last year tornado warnings near Detroit forced the shutdown of the Fermi 2 atomic reactor. This was the same site where a meltdown in 1966 nearly irradiated the Greats Lakes Region. - For much of 2010 the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was an ongoing saga of futility and despair. - In July of 2007 a major earthquake in Japan badly damaged one nuclear reactor in a complex of nuclear reactors. - In December of 2008 a Tennessee Valley Authority reservoir, which was storing the contaminated ash from one of its power plants, burst and sent a toxic stew of waste 100 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill into a tributary of the Tennessee River. Despite assurances that such dam bursting was unusual and would never happen again, scarcely a month had passed when yet another coal waste reservoir (this one in Alabama) failed and spewed contamination downstream. Vulnerability lessons are not new. After World War II German military leaders pointed out that the U.S. could have ended the War two years sooner by bombing the big coal power plants. Instead the allies were bombing individual industrial sites like steel mills, failing to recognize that the big coal plants powered 80% of Germany’s manufacturing. In contrast, Japan’s electric power was provided by a huge number of small dams that were not attractive targets for attack because no single one was crucial for the power system of the nation. The energy for a steady state economy can be supplied by a huge number of solar panels and wind mills<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-ener…>as outlined by physics professors Jacobson and Delucchi at Stanford University (*Scientific American*, November, 2009) and by many others. It would be a refreshing change to see President Obama propose such an ambitious solar/wind plan in the aftermath of the meltdown in Japan, but he seems content merely to suggest a thorough review of nuclear reactors. Before having to hear how high the costs of renewable energy are, I’ll close with a brief reminder of the government subsidies the U.S. nuclear industry is slated to receive. Here are some components of the $46 billion being offered up over the next 5 years in addition to the cap on liability for any accident: - $22.5 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors; - $12.3 billion in nuclear waste fund liability payments; - $3 billion for mixed oxide activities; and - $1.9 billion for fusion energy. For more details, please see the green scissors report<http://www.greenscissors.com/> . Seeing this list of handouts, one might think that Republican leaders would recoil at what might be termed nuclear socialism. One would think that the Tea Party activists would revolt at the sight of this massive government program to fund something that Wall Street would not touch even before the catastrophe in Japan. You are subscribed to email updates from Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy <http://steadystate.org/> To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=ddEHy4HeNsHyT2gOSoQyE5N…> . Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL list, send any message to: CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Conservation Chair, Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club Energy Chair, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

3 2

Fwd: [Justice] Clean Water Advocates Win First Round of Challenge Against Masontown Coal Plant
by James Kotcon 22 Mar '11

22 Mar '11

Another ash dump has to clean up their discharges. This sets a precedent for Albright, and reinforces the Patriot victory. JBK >>> Cindy Rank <clrank(a)hughes.net> 3/22/2011 2:34 PM >>> OF INTEREST ..... cindy FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2011 Contacts: Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500 (office) or (202) 841-7619 (cell), rismail(a)earthjustice.org Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881 (office), adillen(a)earthjustice.org Lisa Graves-Marcucci, Environmental Integrity Project, (412) 653-4328 (home) or (412) 897-0569 (cell), lgmarcucci(a)environmentalintegrity.org Aimee Erickson, Executive Director, Citizens Coal Council, (412) 257-2223 (office) or (724) 470-3982 (cell), aimee(a)citizenscoalcouncil.org Clean Water Advocates Win First Round of Challenge Against Masontown Coal Plant First step to securing cleaner water for 350,000 people PITTSBURGH, PA – Clean water advocates have won the first round in a legal fight ( http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/hatfield-s-ferry-judgm… ) over permit limits that would prevent the Hatfield’s Ferry coal-fired power plant from dumping polluted water into the Monongahela River. Allegheny Energy is challenging the limits in an effort to avoid installation of pollution controls that would eliminate wastewater discharges of mercury, arsenic, selenium, and other toxic metals as well as salts and dissolved solids that are currently impairing water quality in the river, which is a drinking water source for more than 350,000 people living south of Pittsburgh. After 40 years of operation without effective controls for air pollution, Hatfield’s Ferry has finally installed a scrubbing system that limits the amount of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that the plant pumps into the air. However, the company has resisted installing equally effective pollution controls that would limit the amount of contaminated water discharged by the scrubbers. As a result, dangerous pollutants that are no longer going into the air are ending up in the river. “Taking coal waste from smokestacks and dumping it into our rivers makes no sense because coal is no cleaner in our water,” said Aimee Erickson, Executive Director, Citizens Coal Council. “The Citizens Coal Council is committed to working with others around the country to ensure that protecting America’s air from coal burning power plant emissions does not come at the expense of the American people's drinking water.” “We shouldn’t have to choose between air that is safe to breathe and water that is safe to drink,” said Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice attorney. “This decision by Pennsylvania’s Environmental Hearing Board is important because it affirms that Hatfield’s Ferry has to meet all necessary limits to protect water quality in the river.” “This is an important victory, and we applaud the state of Pennsylvania and Earthjustice for defending protective limits on water pollution,” said Lisa Graves-Marcucci, of the Environmental Integrity Project. “While the Hatfield’s Ferry scrubber will help clear the air, the court’s recent decision brings us one step closer to keeping the same pollutants out of the Monongahela River, the most important source of drinking water for communities on its shorelines.” Specifically, Allegheny Energy sought to classify its new scrubber system as an existing source of pollution instead of a “new discharger” - subject to the most stringent pollution control requirements. In rejecting this argument, Chief Judge Thomas W. Renwand wrote: “We specifically reject Allegheny Energy’s contention that its facility does not fall within the definition of a ‘new discharger’ because it discharges at an existing outfall on the Monongahela River…We also agree with the Department and the Interveners that Allegheny Energy’s position cannot be reconciled with either the plain language of the regulations or the overarching intent of the Clean Water Law.” Judge Renwand further stated that Allegheny Energy’s argument “would substantially gut the congressional goal to eliminate pollutant discharges to the waters of the United States as quickly as possible.” Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council joined together to defend protective limits for sulfate and total dissolved solids in the discharge permit for Hatfield’s Ferry, and they are challenging the failure to impose limits on metals such as arsenic and selenium. The first phase of the legal proceedings involves only the sulfate and total dissolved solids limits. If Allegheny is ordered to comply with them, they will need to install pollution controls that eliminate the discharge of heavy metals as well. A copy of the summary judgment: http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/hatfield-s-ferry-judgm… A copy of the appeal: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/legal_docs/hatsfield-fe…

1 0

Re: [EC] Fwd: [Justice] Clean Water Advocates Win First Round of Challenge Against Masontown Coal Plant
by Jim Sconyers 22 Mar '11

22 Mar '11

Excellent news! Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ________________________________ From: Cindy Rank <clrank(a)hughes.net> To: mbecher(a)appalachian-center.org; jlovett(a)appalachian-center.org; derek_teaney(a)yahoo.com; bluckett(a)appalachian-center.org; adawson(a)appalachian-center.org; mjanes(a)hardynet.com Cc: peter.morgan(a)apps.sierraclub.org; jkotcon(a)wvu.edu; jim_scon(a)yahoo.com; sminney(a)wvrivers.org Sent: Tue, March 22, 2011 2:34:13 PM Subject: Fwd: [Justice] Clean Water Advocates Win First Round of Challenge Against Masontown Coal Plant OF INTEREST ..... cindy FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 22, 2011 Contacts: Raviya Ismail, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500 (office) or (202) 841-7619 (cell), rismail(a)earthjustice.org Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice, (212) 791-1881 (office), adillen(a)earthjustice.org Lisa Graves-Marcucci, Environmental Integrity Project, (412) 653-4328 (home) or (412) 897-0569 (cell), lgmarcucci(a)environmentalintegrity.org Aimee Erickson, Executive Director, Citizens Coal Council, (412) 257-2223 (office) or (724) 470-3982 (cell), aimee(a)citizenscoalcouncil.org Clean Water Advocates Win First Round of Challenge Against Masontown Coal Plant First step to securing cleaner water for 350,000 people PITTSBURGH, PA – Clean water advocates have won the first round in a legal fight over permit limits that would prevent the Hatfield’s Ferry coal-fired power plant from dumping polluted water into the Monongahela River. Allegheny Energy is challenging the limits in an effort to avoid installation of pollution controls that would eliminate wastewater discharges of mercury, arsenic, selenium, and other toxic metals as well as salts and dissolved solids that are currently impairing water quality in the river, which is a drinking water source for more than 350,000 people living south of Pittsburgh. After 40 years of operation without effective controls for air pollution, Hatfield’s Ferry has finally installed a scrubbing system that limits the amount of sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that the plant pumps into the air. However, the company has resisted installing equally effective pollution controls that would limit the amount of contaminated water discharged by the scrubbers. As a result, dangerous pollutants that are no longer going into the air are ending up in the river. “Taking coal waste from smokestacks and dumping it into our rivers makes no sense because coal is no cleaner in our water,” said Aimee Erickson, Executive Director, Citizens Coal Council. “The Citizens Coal Council is committed to working with others around the country to ensure that protecting America’s air from coal burning power plant emissions does not come at the expense of the American people's drinking water.” “We shouldn’t have to choose between air that is safe to breathe and water that is safe to drink,” said Abigail Dillen, Earthjustice attorney. “This decision by Pennsylvania’s Environmental Hearing Board is important because it affirms that Hatfield’s Ferry has to meet all necessary limits to protect water quality in the river.” “This is an important victory, and we applaud the state of Pennsylvania and Earthjustice for defending protective limits on water pollution,” said Lisa Graves-Marcucci, of the Environmental Integrity Project. “While the Hatfield’s Ferry scrubber will help clear the air, the court’s recent decision brings us one step closer to keeping the same pollutants out of the Monongahela River, the most important source of drinking water for communities on its shorelines.” Specifically, Allegheny Energy sought to classify its new scrubber system as an existing source of pollution instead of a “new discharger” - subject to the most stringent pollution control requirements. In rejecting this argument, Chief Judge Thomas W. Renwand wrote: “We specifically reject Allegheny Energy’s contention that its facility does not fall within the definition of a ‘new discharger’ because it discharges at an existing outfall on the Monongahela River…We also agree with the Department and the Interveners that Allegheny Energy’s position cannot be reconciled with either the plain language of the regulations or the overarching intent of the Clean Water Law.” Judge Renwand further stated that Allegheny Energy’s argument “would substantially gut the congressional goal to eliminate pollutant discharges to the waters of the United States as quickly as possible.” Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project and Citizens Coal Council joined together to defend protective limits for sulfate and total dissolved solids in the discharge permit for Hatfield’s Ferry, and they are challenging the failure to impose limits on metals such as arsenic and selenium. The first phase of the legal proceedings involves only the sulfate and total dissolved solids limits. If Allegheny is ordered to comply with them, they will need to install pollution controls that eliminate the discharge of heavy metals as well. A copy of the summary judgment: http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/hatfield-s-ferry-judgm… A copy of the appeal: http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/library/legal_docs/hatsfield-fe…

1 0

Fw: Fwd: [CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL] Surely We Can Do Better than Nuclear Socialism
by Jim Sconyers 22 Mar '11

22 Mar '11

Good reading. Note: Congress LEGISLATED a cap on nuke plant liability. The insurer of nuke plant liability is WE, the PEOPLE, also legislated by Congress. This is old info.... Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 304.698.9628 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jane Feldman <feldman.jane(a)GMAIL.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Tue, March 22, 2011 1:52:42 PM Subject: Fwd: [CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL] Surely We Can Do Better than Nuclear Socialism The article below is a great argument for small generators of clean energy - like real clean, solar, wind, geothermal - and a list of all the reasons to reject nuclear. jane ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Janet McGarry <Zzzpuck(a)aol.com> Date: Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:20 AM Subject: [CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL] Surely We Can Do Better than Nuclear Socialism To: CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL(a)lists.sierraclub.org This is an interesting newsletter --- the Daly news which refers to the economist Herman Daly. Janet McGarry ________________________________ Surely We Can Do Better than Nuclear Socialism Posted: 21 Mar 2011 08:28 PM PDT by Brent Blackwelder They were in the news a half century ago when they were called “too cheap to meter.” Now “absolutely safe” nuclear reactors are once again in the news. As the horrifying scene in Japan unfolds this month, many politicians and media pundits are acting as if the only electricity choice for the U.S. is nuclear reactors or coal power plants. This is a false choice. A sustainable economy requires a sustainable energy supply, one that is not subject to the vulnerabilities of big central energy systems. A steady state economy would run on a decentralized set of renewable energy sources that is clean and resilient. It would be an economy powered by the sun, the wind, the natural heat content of the Earth, and other renewable sources. Advanced designs for where we live and how we travel would be a key part of this energy transformation. For example, buildings would be designed to generate power rather than requiring external energy supplies for cooling and heating. And let’s not forget about conservation – we need to set up the economy such that it uses less energy in the first place. The energy system that would run a steady state economy does not have the severe security problems that plague current systems, nor would it require massive subsidies in the form of liability limits, loan guarantees, externalization of health damages, etc. You don’t have to worry about a solar or wind “spill” contaminating the air, land and water; you don’t need liability caps for a wind farm or for solar collectors on roofs; and finally, you don’t need to bill consumers (instead of stockholders or investors) in advance for a nuclear reactor that may never be completed. The strength and resilience of decentralized power, its superior employment intensity, and the potential for community involvement are all features that make a different energy model very attractive. Various European nations such as Spain, Germany, and Denmark have demonstrated the huge potential of wind and solar power, as has the state of Texas in the case of wind with 9,700 megawatts installed. But look at the powerful forces today pushing nuclear reactor construction in the southeastern U.S. and obstructing the clean energy path of the future. Even after the terrible nuclear meltdown in Japan, two big southern utilities, South Carolina Electric & Gas and Georgia Power, announced that they are not pausing to consider some lessons to be learned before proceeding full speed ahead with four new reactors. To pay for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle, Georgia Power has begun billing its Georgia customers this month for the intended construction. Ironically, the proposed new reactors being billed to Georgia consumers are intended to supply customers in Florida. Consumers and taxpayers are bearing all the risks, not investors. The energy systems used to power the global economy are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events, sabotage, terrorism, and war. The Japanese catastrophe this month certainly brings to mind the nuclear disasters at Chernobyl in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979. But the nuclear and fossil fuel industries have supplied many less well-known disasters. A brief review of some of the accidents will accentuate the difference between the polluting energy of today’s economy and the clean energy future that would, by its very nature, avoid these messes: * In July of 1979, at the Navajo community of Church Rock, New Mexico, an earthen dam at United Nuclear Corporation’s uranium mill broke, releasing 95 million gallons of radioactive wastewater into the Rio Puerco. The spill sent contaminants over 100 miles downstream. This unpublicized spill is estimated to have contained over triple the amount of radiation (curies) that the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor released in the very same year. * Last year tornado warnings near Detroit forced the shutdown of the Fermi 2 atomic reactor. This was the same site where a meltdown in 1966 nearly irradiated the Greats Lakes Region. * For much of 2010 the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was an ongoing saga of futility and despair. * In July of 2007 a major earthquake in Japan badly damaged one nuclear reactor in a complex of nuclear reactors. * In December of 2008 a Tennessee Valley Authority reservoir, which was storing the contaminated ash from one of its power plants, burst and sent a toxic stew of waste 100 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill into a tributary of the Tennessee River. Despite assurances that such dam bursting was unusual and would never happen again, scarcely a month had passed when yet another coal waste reservoir (this one in Alabama) failed and spewed contamination downstream. Vulnerability lessons are not new. After World War II German military leaders pointed out that the U.S. could have ended the War two years sooner by bombing the big coal power plants. Instead the allies were bombing individual industrial sites like steel mills, failing to recognize that the big coal plants powered 80% of Germany’s manufacturing. In contrast, Japan’s electric power was provided by a huge number of small dams that were not attractive targets for attack because no single one was crucial for the power system of the nation. The energy for a steady state economy can be supplied by a huge number of solar panels and wind mills as outlined by physics professors Jacobson and Delucchi at Stanford University (Scientific American, November, 2009) and by many others. It would be a refreshing change to see President Obama propose such an ambitious solar/wind plan in the aftermath of the meltdown in Japan, but he seems content merely to suggest a thorough review of nuclear reactors. Before having to hear how high the costs of renewable energy are, I’ll close with a brief reminder of the government subsidies the U.S. nuclear industry is slated to receive. Here are some components of the $46 billion being offered up over the next 5 years in addition to the cap on liability for any accident: * $22.5 billion in loan guarantees for new reactors; * $12.3 billion in nuclear waste fund liability payments; * $3 billion for mixed oxide activities; and * $1.9 billion for fusion energy. For more details, please see the green scissors report. Seeing this list of handouts, one might think that Republican leaders would recoil at what might be termed nuclear socialism. One would think that the Tea Party activists would revolt at the sight of this massive government program to fund something that Wall Street would not touch even before the catastrophe in Japan. You are subscribed to email updates from Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL list, send any message to: CONS-FICC-INTERNATIONAL-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp -- Conservation Chair, Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club Energy Chair, Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC