Call Your Senators If You Haven't Already

Despite conflicting opinions in the blogosphere on the merits of the American Power Act (quite a macho bill title--are they compensating for something?), it does seem clear that it's time to pass climate legislation.  If Congress turns more Republican after the fall elections, and most pundits think it will, the chances of passing decent legislation shrink dramatically.  Here, on Grist, is another good discussion of the American Power Act and why it's an improvement over the Clean Air Act alone.  (Warning:  Fake graphic "gutting" photo.)  I haven't seen a good discussion of why the APA is either an improvement over the CLEAR Act or just more likely to get passed (I asked that question today in a comment here on the Grist post).  So my recommended strategy is still to call your Senators (find their numbers here) and urge them to pass the strongest climate legislation possible as quickly as possible.  You might also want to mention that you don't think big government subsidies for nuclear power are a good idea. New Mexico's Senator Jeff Bingaman in particular needs pressure, since he's been lobbying for passage of an energy bill without strong climate provisions.  Let us know your thoughts and what happens, and
Stay cool,
Bonney

Alternatives to nuclear power for slowing climate change

Despite a big push for nuclear power in the US and elsewhere as an answer to the woes of climate change, there remain serious issues that make it a solution of last resort, unless and until these issues can be addressed.  The reason nuclear is brought up is that wind and solar, though very good potential sources of energy, have the problem of being intermittent, and nuclear power plants have almost continuous operation with no greenhouse gas emissions.  The current electric power system requires about 35-40% of the power, termed baseload, to be provided by a steadily available source of energy, mostly burning coal in the US.  This book and website, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, outlines how to reduce greenhouse gases and provide baseload without the use of nuclear energy.

The US can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gases, not to mention energy costs, from conservation measures.  Geothermal energy, from hot rock and water below the Earth's surface, is a source of steady power, has a long track record, doesn't generate greenhouse gases, and is being rapidly developed.  It's also becoming more economical with tax incentives and stimulus money.  Although geothermal plants have a high up-front cost, the cost of energy generated from them is less than for coal, as outlined in this Scientific American piece.  Other potential solutions to the problem of solar and wind being intermittent include using hydrogen fuel cells to store the energy these sources generate, and pumping water uphill when solar and wind are available and generating power by sending it downhill when they aren't.

Nuclear power still has all the issues that it had in the 1970's and early 1980's:  no long-term solution to the problem of waste, very large cost of building plants, and safety issues with operating the plants and  mining uranium.  Also, though nuclear plants don't generate CO2 during operation, mining and processing uranium with current methods does generate greenhouse gases.  Some sources point to fast neutron reactors, which potentially solve the problem of waste by producing more fuel from depleted fuel, as the wave of the future.  However this article points to serious problems with these reactors which have resulted in the closure of most of them since their introduction in the 1950's.

With the track record of geothermal, new methods of storing energy from solar and wind, conservation, and new sources of energy being developed, I think we should be very cautious about pursuing a technology which has the potential to release significant amounts of radioactivity for millenia.  What do you think?
Stay cool,
Bonney

Do We Need Nuclear Power to Reduce Climate Change?

In researching this question, I ran across an interesting website, ProCon.org.  Their goal is to "provide resources for critical thinking and to educate without bias. We do not express opinions on our research projects."  On this issue, at least, I think they've succeeded. Here's their piece, "Is expanding nuclear energy production necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" Let me know what you think, and next week, I'll let you know what I think!
Stay cool,
Bonney

Here's the comments I submitted to the Environmental Improvement Board regarding proposed regulation of greenhouse gases.  You can submit comments through the end of the hearing on Monday, or attend the hearing and present your comments in person.  See last week's blog post for details.

Re: Docket number EIB  08-19 (R)

I have read the proposed regulations and support the proposal to set a science based cap on greenhouse gas emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. As a former Environment Department employee, I find the proposed regulations to be fair and enforceable. Setting these regulations will provide a more predictable environment for business than the current lack of regulation in which we are left to wonder what form regulation will take. As a scientist and writer studying climate change for the last year and a half, I've concluded, along with a large majority of scientists studying the issue, that climate change is one of the most severe environmental problems facing the species of planet Earth, including humans.

New Mexico has the chance to join California and Massachusetts in passing regulations that create a favorable environment for investment in renewable energy, spurring a green economic recovery, and to to have a large influence on what form Federal regulations will take. I encourage the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations. As reported by Ceres, a national network of investors and public interest groups, the world's largest investors released a statement in January 2010 calling on governments to adopt climate change policy that will create a stable investment environment. "Given that Copenhagen was a missed opportunity to create one fully functional international carbon market, it is more important than ever that individual governments implement regional and domestic policy change to stimulate the creation of a low carbon economy,” said Peter Dunsombe, chairman of the IIGCC, a network of European investors.

I call on the Environmental Improvement Board to adopt these regulations.