Mr Epstein was at Zuccotti Park, interviewing a member of OWS.
The sign at her feet read “For a nuclear free, carbon free future.” The one in her hands an equally predictable “Excessive wealth and consumption are dying paradigms. Renew American with a Green Revolution.”So, Mr Epstein asked the woman what percentage of global energy comes from nuclear and carbon sources.
She filibustered.
He told her 95%.
Frankly, we need to reduce that number, a lot, and not having Senator Edward Kennedy opposing Cape Cod wind projects will help. On the other hand, those two sources will be dominant for a long time. The Administration can stop extraction in Ohio and force Canada to work on exporting oil to China, rather than the US, but when the "Brown Outs" come, the People will demand action on the part of their Government.
Frankly, the billions we have thrown at the Department of Energy, nuclear weapons and nuclear power aside, seems to have been money down the drain. But, maybe they are only weeks away from announcing some "cold fusion" breakthrough. We can hope. In the mean time we should not destroy the economy for some marginal increase in the Environment Less Humans, while causing a major decrease in the quality of life of humans.
The woman being interviewed per the above link was just unable or unwilling to think through the problem. It is sad. But, maybe she doesn't vote. She is young.
Regards — Cliff
Sure, 95%, but of that percentage how much is derived from nuclear generation? I would suggest that breakdown would be much more revealing and much more instructive. We are throwing money down the rat hole of DOE because there is no substantive, objective evidence that these "green" solutions work on a scale necessary to displace or replace the more traditional sources of energy. In Palm Springs at the eastern end of Banning Pass is perhaps the world's largest wind farm and its operation is instructive. The maintenance costs of each unit are great and they only provide energy when there is wind. Then there is the whole solar gimmick. I can recall sitting in a barber shop as a young boy in my hometown reading in Popular Science about scientists doing solar power experiments in the Mojave Desert. I am an old man now....and they are still playing with mirrors in the desert. Nancy Pelosi and her family have gotten very wealthy from that bit of hocus pocus.
ReplyDeleteEnergy generation for humanity is a corollary to the axiom that guns don't kill people, people kill people. There is NO energy generation methodology that is clean and without impact on the environment. Employment of this or that type is strictly a quid pro quo. Society must live with the costs.
BTW, the reason we are in such trouble with "environmental impacts of energy use" is that there are simply too many people using energy. In its simplest equation, a "green environment" requires one of two alternatives, if not a healthy union of both. Less people, or less energy required.