Comments on: Call now for clean energy

By: Jan Moore

Jan Moore — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:55:28 +0000

http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agriculture/

Thanks for this forum, Mr. Gore.

We must seriously sequester carbon in our soil naturally (and reward farmers who do that) in concert with organic agriculture (biodynamics) and reforestation ( NO GM trees) to have any hope of balancing our climate and preserving biodiversity.

By: Jan Moore

Jan Moore — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:59:47 +0000

One more comment. As a staunch supporter of Sustainable Agriculture, if this bill does not address the effectd of industrial agrculture on our environment in regards to Co2 emissions, loss of carbon and nutrients from soil due to our addiction to nitrogen fertilizers, deforestation, etc., how can we possibly do this adequately? Agriculture holds the key to solving cliamte change.

By: Jan Moore

Jan Moore — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:45:34 +0000

While I wholeheartedly support clean energy not only because of jobs but to maintain the climate balance of this planet and the health of our citizens and the biodiversity of other species, I have a hard time believing the very people in Congress who have held up progress on climate change for so many years are going to pass any sort of comprehensive legislation that meets this crsis adequately and in time to avoid a tipping point. A scientific report out of Kuwait recently stated that Peak Oil will come about 2014. The timelapse between peak oil and the transition we then need to see to clean energy is going to leave us stuck as we are not moving fast enough to complete it. It is exactly political partisanship and impasses that have brought us to this point. And now with the USSC ruling allowing greater access of corporate dollars into the very halls of Congress you are counting on to do “the right thing” just how compromised and washed down will this bill be before it even gets enough votes to pass? How many concessions to nuclear, and the non existant “clean coal” will there be? How low will the emissions targets go? Believe me, I want to support a bill on climate change and do understand the historical significance of this. I just don’t trust people in Congress to do this based on science rather than political expediency. Can you give me a reason to think this will actually do what we must see to avoid a climate tipping point?

By: Deb Huston

Deb Huston — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:15:21 +0000

How can I ask a question during the Vice President’s call?

By: Axel Schrandt

Axel Schrandt — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:53:08 +0000

Edwin is right on. Repower America is 99.99% on target (in fact, is not off-target anywhere) with the exception of not explicitly supporting modern nuclear. Generation IV nuclear technology, which is safe, efficient and capable of using prior nuclear waste as fuel needs to factor into our energy future if we are realistic.

In addition, electric plug-in cars is not enough, we need to invest in rail for transportation – both inter-city and regional. Moving away from fossil fuels and foreign oil reliance will put additional burden on our electric infrastructure, but we have the means to meet that demand if we just get in gear.

By: Edwin Sayre

Edwin Sayre — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:47:31 +0000

The best clean power we can push is nuclear power. Nuclear fission is the cleanest, safest, most reliable and the most environmentally friendly source of energy. We should be building more thermal reactors and we should get a program going to reprocess the used nuclear fuel. We should aso be pushing a program to develop small fast breeder reactor power plants to recycle the used fuel and to integrate the renmewables with the grid. Renewables, wind and solar have an average capacity factor of 25% so other sources that can be started up in a hurry and turned off in a hurry like gas turbines must be used to integrate them with the grid. That is why the fossil fuel industry is pushing renewables. Right now for every 1 megawatt hour of wind or solar energy produced they must produce 4 megawatt hours of gas turbine energy.

Because of the 25% capacity factor for wind and solar energy if we are to get the 20 percent of our energy by them we must put in 5 times the amount when they operate. That means when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing every thing else must be turned off unless 80% of the wind and solar power us stored to be used when they stop operating. The best storage system is pumped storage which is difficult or impossible to locate in many areas of the US. Pressurization of air, rotating machinery and batteries are other storage devices. They however are very inefficient and can double or tripple the cost of renewable energy versus nuclear energy cost.

By: thad freeman

thad freeman — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:13:59 +0000

I own title to 574,000 tons of coal (seam six). You, sir, can go jump in the lake. Thad

By: David Curry

David Curry — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:54:40 +0000

Instead of all the blather about clean energy and bitching about fossil fuels, why don’t you come up with some specific provision for legislation. And please, not 2000 pages of stuff nobody reads.

David M. Curry

By: Early Dinner | Running Leaner and Greener

Early Dinner | Running Leaner and Greener — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:52:06 +0000

[...] to do something to push for clean energy. Read this and make a call to your [...]

By: Young Ro

Young Ro — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:05:14 +0000

New studies are emerging that take into account factors not included in the IPCC models, such as increased glacial flow. According to a study based on semi-empirical relationships between changes in sea level and global temperatures, we should experience on the order of 10 to 30 cm of sea level rise per °C increase in temperature (Rahmstorf, 2007). When this relationship is applied to the IPCC’s 2007 scenarios for warming during the 21st century which range from 1.4° to 5.8°C, sea level projections are higher than the IPCC’s published estimates. The model-based estimates for the IPCC range from .18 to .59 m (0.6 – 1.9 feet), whereas Rahmstorf (2007) projects 0.5 – 1.4 m (1.6 – 4.6 feet) of sea level rise. The most recent major paper on sea level rise, published by Pfeffer et al. (2008) in the journal Science, conclude that a “most likely” range of sea level rise by 2100 is 2.6 – 6.6 feet (0.8 – 2.0 meters). Their estimates came from a detailed analysis of the processes the IPCC said were understood too poorly to model-the ice flow dynamics of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. The authors caution that “substantial uncertainties” exist in their estimates, and that the cost of building higher levees to protect against sea level rise is not trivial.

From website http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp

Now remember that the frozen methane is in water not frozen water. The circulation of the convection currents keeps the ocean currents from freezing in the deep oceans.