Re: Clean Energy Blueprint - URL

["Lorraine Marceau-Day" <day@LSU.EDU>]

Comments on your executive summary



1."Meets at least 20% of its electricity needs by renewable energy sources"

- 23% are currently met by nuclear power in this country - some 89% in

France.   What would you give up to account for the 3% and growing

discrepancy?

     wind - see previous message - we can't handle gusts with current

techology and extended periods of calm

     biomass - still produces a waste - check what problems Brazil has had

getting rid of vinasse (waste product from the fermentation of    sugar

cane to ethanol to convert all their cars to ethanol fuel)

     geothermal - carries with it radiation ( the very thing you are trying

to get rid of with nuclear power)

     solar - not very useful in the cloudy northwest - and solar panel

production produces some nasty waste in itself



2."save consumers $440 billion by 2020" - the cost to produce energy from

fossil fuels is about $1000/kw-hour, $2000 for nuclear and $4000 for

alternative energies.  - That translates to an approximate doubling of

costs - no savings



3."reduce natural gas by 31%"  - and what do you intend for industry to run

on? - What alternatives do you propose here?

     As we continue to grow (exponentially) ,  What would you give up to

not build 975 power plants, retire 180 coal plants, retire 14 nuclear power

plants? - Tell me what industries you would shut down in this country, what

comforts you would life without?  People can't live in Phoenix in the

summer without air-conditioning - Who makes the decision on the have and

have-nots?> - there was a sampling of that in California this summer.

Fortunately, the weather was relatively mild this summer



4."reduce carbon dioxide emissions from business by 2/3" - Do you know what

proportion is due to car emissions - do you really think people will give

up their cars???? / or that developing nations will be willing to forgo the

convenience of a car.  The cost to rebuild the rail system is not practical

in this country and people just don't take buses in this country.  So don't

come back with the need for better public transportation - It works in

Europe because of the high population density - it does not work on a

sub-continent like the US - with wide open spaces.  Besides it is neither

time nor energy efficient.





   Don't get me wrong - I'm all for improving efficiency in all walks of

life.  However, since I live in Louisiana, I'm not willing to give up

air-conditioning in the summer, not in my home, my car nor my work.  This

week, I attended a seminar on global warming - the experts say that under

the best conditions, wind power only works for about 12.5% of the time

where it is un use in Holland.  There is a difference between pie in the

sky and reality.  There is merit in trying to move towards alternative

energies - there is merit also in supporting new research on Green

Technologies such as nuclear power - The new Pebble reactors are considered

to have essentially zero risk.  You must be open to all solutions and not

eliminate  choices because of pre-conceived notions.  You should attempt to

learn as much as possible about each technology - then make an unbiased

decision.  Mobile Chernobyl is not a viable scenario.  Try to understand

why.  Your union of concerned scientists group seems to be a little short

on nuclear engineers and physicists who do understand the value and the

risks of nuclear energy.





   By failing to understand the real risks and hiding under the union of

concerned scientists, you repudiate the real experts and give scientists

eveywhere a black eye.  Scientists have a thirst for knowledge and

understanding of the complex world around them.   Good science is

open-minded!





   Lorraine Day PhD

   day@lsu.edu



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.