[NukeNet] Feedback? FW: SEN: Sol-a-bration, Climate Change Bill, Solar, Wind & Nuclear News, McCain on Nukes & More
Frieda Berryhill
frieda302 at comcast.net
Wed May 28 20:40:42 EDT 2008
Did your State have a wind power proposal? We are fighting for it now. Watch
out for the pitfalls !!!!
F
Frieda
<http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2008/05/frieda-berryhill-writes_23.html>
Berryhill Writes:
<http://bp2.blogger.com/_F5nfHv27ysE/SDiGjcXjYkI/AAAAAAAABsU/OIH9F9Mmjo4/s16
00-h/untitledPepcpTransmissionline.bmp> Why is Delmarva fighting so hard to
prevent Wind Power in Delaware ?
<http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2008/05/just-say-no-to-delmarva-powers-mega
.html> Delmarva Power's Mega Lines
Dominion announced on Nov. 28, 2007, that it has filed an application with
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a
new nuclear reactor at its North Anna Power that covers Virginia
Constellation Energy and its partner UniStar are hoping to construct a third
reactor at Calvert Cliffs. The extensive approval process by state and
federal regulatory agencies is expected to take two years. That covers
Maryland
AmerGen Energy LLC recently announced it will seek to extend the operating
license of Oyster CreekNUCLEAR Generating Station by 20 years. Right over to
Vineland
And then on to Salem ...With a 4th reactor in the planning stages.
We are not unique :
Progress Energy Florida narrows sites for future power lines
Tampa Bay Business Journal
Progress Energy
<http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/gen/Progress_Energy_EE191368DB8B4EBBB38
0925C46D30917.html> Florida has unveiled plans for about 200 miles of
potential new power lines in the state.
Construction would start in 2012 for the project to be in service by 2016,
pending approval from the Florida Public Service Commission
<http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/gen/Florida_Public%20Service%20Commissi
on_95D08BE9D00548FF88F079023B8BBBCA.html> .
JEA eyes stake in Georgia nuclear power plant
Atlanta Business Chronicle
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA
<http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/gen/JEA_138599A618F8401585E7B4620BC895E3
.html> ) is looking to enter a 20-year contract to buy nuclear power from a
yet-to-be-built plant near Augusta , Ga.
With price tags ranging from $12 billion to $18 billion for a nuclear
reactor that could produce 2,200 megawatts daily, JEA can only afford a
partnership with a major utility, as opposed to building its own plant. More
on these unholy partnerships' later.
<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/florida-power-light-backs-off-wind-
farm.php> What Were They Thinking? Florida Power & Light Backs Off Wind Farm
In Park Proposal
by John Laumer, Philadelphia
<http://www.treehugger.com/authors/index.php?author=John%20Laumer> on
03.20.08
Science <http://www.treehugger.com/science_technology/> & Technology
(alternative energy
<http://www.treehugger.com/science_technology/alternative_energy/> ) See,
they don't like wind either ! (Where is the money?)
Does this begin to sound familiar?
The Co's mantra
No Wind Power with it's clean unlimited supply. The "Money" is in nukes with
all its Government subsidies.
Subsidized fuel
Protections in case of an accident (under Price - Anderson)
Waste disposal and the guardianship thereof (for a 100.000years) borne by
the Government
Construction work in Progress (CWIP) meaning YOU PAY while we build even if
we can never finish.
What a deal !!
Next : Why it will never fly, stay tuned
_____
From: nukenet-bounces at energyjustice.net
[mailto:nukenet-bounces at energyjustice.net] On Behalf Of Mark Haim
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 4:28 PM
To: Nukenet; No New Nukes List
Subject: [NukeNet] Feedback? FW: SEN: Sol-a-bration, Climate Change
Bill,Solar, Wind & Nuclear News, McCain on Nukes & More
Hello friends,
Below is our May issue of our Missourians for Safe Energy e-newsletter.
We would welcome any feedback, input, suggestions, corrections, etc. Feel
free to post me directly, if you like at mhaim at riseup.net
Our hope is to make this more accessible by getting the starts of articles
in our e-post and the bulk of the content on our website, but we need to get
finish the website makeover first, a volunteer-driven process that's lagging
somewhat.
Anyway, thanks for any input or suggestions you can offer.
Sorry I can't be with those of you gathering this weekend, the distance is
just too great.
Peace,
Mark Haim
-----Original Message-----
From: Missourians for Safe Energy [mailto:mail at mosafeenergy.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 2:01 PM
To: MSE Mid-Mo List
Subject: SEN: Sol-a-bration, Climate Change Bill, Solar, Wind & Nuclear
News, McCain on Nukes & More
Safe Energy News--May 2008
PLEASE READ & SHARE--FORWARD TO FRIENDS & LISTS--THANKS! (see subscription
info at bottom)
Hello friends,
With gas prices pushing $4 a gallon, energy is on everyones mind. Melting
polar ice, and extreme weather patterns have finally convinced large numbers
of citizens to take climate change seriously. And, while not everyone agrees
that peak oil is upon us, there is a growing recognition of the finite
nature of the fossil fuels that provide roughly 85 percent of our energy
needs.
We sustainable energy advocates are confronting both possibility and peril.
This is an educable moment; an opportunity for us to advocate a carbon-free
and nuclear-free strategy that takes advantage of both the abundant
opportunities for improving efficiency as well as the now much more
cost-competitive clean, green renewable sources. We also face the prospects
of corporate polluters and profiteers taking advantage of their political
connections and public fears of energy shortages, to promote massive
subsidies for costly, unsustainable options.
We dont have the money, the political clout or the media access that the
nuclear, oil, coal and giant agribusiness interests have. What we have going
for us is that the commonsense approach to energy were advocating is fast,
affordable, environmentally friendly and it works. What we need to move
forward this sustainable agenda is active support and participation of
thousands of grassroots energy activists around the nation.
We, here at MSE, encourage you to consider what role you can play in
promoting a safe, sustainable energy future. We hope you will contact us at
mail at mosafeenergy.org or at 573-875-0539 to get more information or to
volunteer to work with us.
We also hope you will join us for our first ever Sol-a-bration in Columbia,
Saturday, June 21. Details are below. Dont miss this one.
Your friends at MSE
THIS MONTHS ISSUE INCLUDES:
1) MSE Update, Join the Sol-a-bration.
a) Other Mid-Mo Events
2) 170,000 Signatures Collected on Renewable Energy Initiative Petition.
3) Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill: How Much Good Will it Do? What are
Critics Saying?
4) Solar Film Brings Costs Down Dramatically
5) More Good News on the Wind Front.
6) Nuclear News/John McCain on Nuclear Power
7) Necessity is the Mother
MSE REACHES OUT, PLANS SOL-A-BRATION FOR JUNE 21 SOLSTICE, OTHER EVENTS:
This past month Missourians for Safe Energy has held programs in Columbia,
St. Louis and St. Charles. We are eager to engage more of our fellow
citizens on the critical energy issues facing us. We would like to remind
you that our Speakers Bureau is ready to go if your group would like a
speaker. We are also happy to provide copies of the DVD Climate of Hope
suitable for public meetings, house parties, your home viewing, etc. Its
high time for folks to get together and discuss energy choices. We hope
youll contact us to arrange a program.
DONT MISS THE SOL-A-BRATION, JUNE 21:
MSE is getting all the pieces in place for an amazing, free Summer Solstice
event that will feature excellent live entertainment, speakers, booths,
displays and more. We will be celebrating renewable energy and coming
together to oppose any further commitments to either fossil fuels or nuclear
power.
We invite you to join us at Courthouse Square at 8th and Walnut in downtown
Columbia from 1 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., Saturday, June 21. An all-star line up
of area artists have volunteered their talents for this event, spanning
musical genres. We are proud to announce that performers at the
Sol-a-bration will include: Violet Vonder Haar, Lizzie West & Baba Buffalo,
Mere Mortals, Susan Woodbury, Martin Family Band, Universal Drum Appeal,
Jimmy Spitz and Clatter.
Please mark your calendars. We hope you will join us on June 21, the longest
day of the year, for excellent music, the opportunity to learn more about
the issues and to share a sense of solidarity with others who care about the
Earth and our future.
OTHER MID-MISSOURI EVENTS:
MSE MEETINGS: MSE holds our monthly meetings the first Tuesday of each
month, 7:15 p.m. at the Peace Nook. These meetings are open to all
interested in participating in our work. We will next meet on June 3 and
then on July 1.
MSE BIKE RIDE: The cyclists in our group invite you to join us for a fun
ride on the MKT Trail, Sunday, June 15. We will gather at Flat Branch
Trailhead Park between 2 and 2:30 p.m., and then leave at 2:30 for a ride at
a modest pace to Hindman Junction and back. This is not a race and not a
fundraiser, just an opportunity to ride together, share some good company
and get a little exercise.
POTLUCK: Following the bike ride, at 5:30 p.m., on June 15 we will be
hosting a potluck dinner and discussion. This is open to all, including ride
participants and all others. Please contact us at mail at mosafeenergy.org or
573-875-0539 for more info.
COLUMBIA POWER SUPPLY TASK FORCE--OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT, WEDNESDAY, MAY 28:
The Columbia Power Supply Task Force will be holding a pubic meeting to
present the Integrated Resources Plan produced by Burns & McDonnell and get
pubic input on the report before it goes to the city council. All are
encouraged to attend this event at 6:30 p.m. on May 28 in the City Council
Chambers, in the Daniel Boone Building, 7th & Broadway. More information on
this meeting is available at:
http://gocolumbiamo.com/WaterandLight/Electric/ElectricSupplyInformation.php
You can also read the Interim IRP at:
http://gocolumbiamo.com/WaterandLight/Documents/InterimIRP.pdf
RENEW MISSOURI REPORTS SIGNATURE SUCCESS:
Activists working to enact a Renewable Energy Standard to be met by
Missouris investor owned electric utilities (IOUs) announced on May 4 that
they had greatly exceeded the required number of signatures. They turned in
approximately 170,000 signatures to the Missouri Secretary of State to
qualify the measure for the November 4, 2008 ballot. The required number of
valid signatures was 92,153. so it is highly likely this measure will appear
on the ballot. For details see:
http://www.renewmo.org/news/clean-energy-initiative-submits-signatures-for-2
008-ballot
The measure would require a modest, but escalating, percentage of
electricity to be produced from renewable sources, building to 15 percent by
2021. Details are at http://www.renewmo.org/Ballot_Language_Explained.pdf
The campaign to date has received a positive response from Missourians. This
is consistent with polls that show wide support for renewable power and with
the results of a similar municipal initiative in Columbia in 2004, which
garnered 78 percent yes votes. It is unclear at this point if there will
be any organized opposition to the initiative. In a move that surprised
some, it was reported on April 23 that Kansas City Power & Light, the
states second largest IOU endorsed passage of the measure. See:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_April_23/ai_n25354930
The campaign committee working for passage of the initiative is Missourians
for Cleaner Cheaper Energy (www.missouricleanenergy.org
<http://www.missouricleanenergy.org/> ).
CLIMATE CHANGE BILL--WHATS IN IT? WHY ARE THERE ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORTERS &
OPPONENTS?
Many readers have surely heard about the proposed Lieberman-Warner Climate
Security bill currently working its way through the U.S. Senate. Far fewer,
however, are likely aware of its contents or understand its profound
implications. In our last issue of Safe Energy News we explained some of the
policy options--prescriptive, proscriptive, market-based, etc.--for
addressing climate change. If you havent read that issue and would like a
copy, please send us an e-mail requesting it.
While virtually everyone--and certainly all environmentalists--agree that
climate protection is essential, there is significant disagreement as to
whether the Lieberman-Warner bill would achieve the desired ends.
Environmentalists disagree over whether a cap and trade (C&T) system is the
best approach, and, if C&T is established, what ground rules to adopt.
PRO L-W VOICES: Those who favor market-based solutions find much good in
tradeable permits to pollute. Their argument hinges on the notion that those
who have the least cost investment opportunities to reduce greenhouse gases
will have additional economic motivation to take these steps. Moreover, as a
society, we will make the most rapid progress possible as we take advantage
of the low-hanging fruit.
One environmental organization that supports this approach is the
Environmental Defense Fund. They have for many years been advocates of
market solutions, including the deregulation of electric utility markets, as
was done nearly a decade ago in California and a number of other states, to
rather mixed results. For more on their take on the bill currently before
the Senate, please see:
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2008/05/15/5_reasons_senate_
must_act/
To understand better EDFs approach to market-based solutions and their
advocacy for programs like C&T, please see:
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1475
QUESTIONING CAP & TRADE: While EDF is well funded and has a significant
presence in Washington, their approach is challenged by many other green
voices. Some question outright the notion of C&T. Some of these groups argue
for a carbon tax. One, the Carbon Tax Center (www.carbontax.org
<http://www.carbontax.org/> ) has laid out the reasons they think their
approach is superior to C&T at:
http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/
SUPPORTING 100% AUCTION: Others in the environmental movement either favor
C&T or see its adoption as likely inevitable, but have major problems with
the way the L-W bill sets up the C&T system. Many object to the fact that
L-W gives approximately half of the allowances to the polluters at no
charge. These allocations are tradeable for real money, and thus represent
nearly a trillion dollar windfall to those industries currently burning
coal, oil and gas. Auction supporters argue that it would be better to have
revenues in the public coffers that could be used to fund the transition to
a sustainable energy economy.
These concerns were articulated by Greenpeaces John Passacantando in a
March 12, 2008 statement: Instead of providing windfall profits to the
coal, oil and gas industries, revenue generated from an emissions cap must
be used to achieve additional reductions in emissions, pay for transitions
in employment for American workers, and offset any short-term energy cost
increases on low- and middle-income families. See:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/america-s-climate-secur
ity-ac
For an excellent analysis by Friends of the Earth of this massive transfer
to corporate coffers see:
http://www.foe.org/pdf/Lieberman_Warner_2-1_Update.pdf. Also, check out a
commentary by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich from Marketplace, May 28,
2008 in which he lays out the differences between the positions of McCain,
Obama and Clinton on this issue:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/28/reich_cap_and_trad
e_auction/
THE NUCLEAR CONNECTION: Voices of environmental concern are also being
raised in regard to the likely increase in subsidies to the nuclear power
industry should the L-W bill become law. They have a point. As an aide to
Sen. Joe Lieberman told Environment & Energy Daily (2/8/08) the L-W bill
would be the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the
United States.
To begin with, by categorizing nuclear power as a zero and low-carbon
energy technology, they will make it eligible for a significant portion of
the hundreds of billions that will be generated through the sale of the
portion of the carbon permits that will be auctioned. It is worthy of note
that there are already designated funds for solar, wind and other renewable
technologies, and thus the zero and low-carbon category seems to have been
created as a means of obscuring the fact that a major impact of the L-W bill
would be a major transfer of funds to the nuclear industry.
Further, as Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service
stated in a February 13, 2008 alert: To make matters worse, pro-nuclear
Senators--including Lieberman and Warner themselves--are planning to
introduce numerous amendments on the Senate floor to provide additional
support for the nuclear industry. They're planning on including everything
from more loan guarantees and other subsidies for new reactors, to setting
up an interim high-level waste storage site, to forcing the opening of
Yucca Mountain. See http://nirs.org/alerts/02-13-2008/1. According to a
National Journal report, it also now appears likely that Lieberman and
Warner will attach an explicit nuclear section to the bill. See:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20080521_1570.php
A good rundown of environmental groups concerns regarding the nuclear
aspects of L-W can be found in Hidden Nuclear Handout Seen in Climate
Bill, by Haider Rizvi in a One World US article published May 27, 2008:
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/160671/1/
QUESTIONS AS TO L-W TARGET: Finally, it should be noted that the goal of
the L-W bill is to achieve a 60-65 percent reduction on greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050. While this sounds ambitious, the scientific consensus is
that globally we must reduce emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 (some
say this is not sufficient). Given our disproportionate per capita
consumption today, in order to achieve the 80 percent level, the United
States would need to cut our emissions by approximately 95 percent. Some
environmentalists question, therefore whether it makes sense to codify what
seems like a very inadequate goal. Others, like the EDF, argue that
something is better than nothing, so they are supporting the bill.
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD: Whatever your thoughts are on this and other
important matters, it is a good idea to let your legislators know. If you
wish to contact your senators, calling is probably the best way to get their
attention. Their contact info is:
Senator Claire McCaskill: 202-224-6154
Phones and addresses for local offices at:
http://mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/locations.cfm
Senator Kit Bond: 202-224-5721
Phones and addresses for local offices at:
http://bond.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.OfficeLocations
DRAMATIC REDUCTIONS IN SOLAR PV COSTS:
As camera film sets, Solar film rises
Imagine a technology with all the benefits of solar power: renewable, easy
and rapidly getting cheaper. Now imagine it without the drawbacks of
weight, brittleness and expensive component materials. Well, that
technology is here, and it's called solar film. It's thin and flexible,
almost like camera film. While it's only being developed by a handful of
companies and isn't quite efficient at converting the suns rays to energy as
silicon wafers, its potential applications are numerous. You could paper
your house with it rather than using the bulky and fragile solar panels, or
sew it into your backpack for a lightweight battery charger while hiking.
Here's the best part: it's cheap, real cheap.
There are various competing technologies, but in the United States the most
compelling development comes from a company called NanoSolar. Their solar
film technology uses a compound called CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide)
that can be printed onto glass or heat-resistant flexible polymers. The
materials are in abundant supply relative to the silicon crystals needed for
regular panels, which helps to bring the price down..
Based in silicon valley and using no silicon in their manufacturing,
NanoSolar recently opened a massive plant capable of producing 430 MW of
solar cells per year. The only thing "nano" about the company is the price
they are wholesaling the cells, at $0.99 a watt (so they claim), compared to
$4-5 a watt as the overall market price for solar modules. Though the
efficiency at which their cells convert sunlight to energy is only at about
10%, compared to up to 20% for silicon wafers, the price tag is right.
For more information about Nanosolar:
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/nanosolar-ready-to-ship-solar-f
ilm.html
http://www.kqed.org/quest/television/fullscreen?id=399
http://www.nanosolar.com <http://www.nanosolar.com/>
For information about other companies developing thin film solar cells:
Best Solar
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4253464.html
Global Solar
http://www.globalsolar.com/
Optisolar
http://venturebeat.com/2008/04/25/we-should-be-talking-more-about-optisolar-
a-solar-startup-with-big-plans/
Heliovolt
http://venturebeat.com/tag/coheliovolt/
MAJOR GROWTH IN WIND POWER PROJECTED:
A major U.S. Department of Energy study released this month estimates that
the United States can produce 20 percent of our electricity from wind farms
by the year 2030. Please note that this is coming from the Bush
Administrations DOE, an agency not known for its support of renewable
energy.
It is also worthy of note that the study incorporates the very conventional
assumption of continued, fairly rapid growth in electric consumption. They
work with the expectation that we, as a nation, will be using 39 percent
more electricity in 2030 than we do today. Many sustainable energy advocates
recognize the huge potential for efficiency improvements and posit that this
would allow continued growth in population and the size of the economy
without requiring growth in electric consumption.
The DOE study projects growth from 11.6 gigawatts today to more than 300
gigawatts of wind capacity by 2030. If this was done in conjunction with
efficiency offsetting growth in demand, the 300 GW would be able to produce
28 percent of U.S. electric demand.
Wind advocates note that actual wind investment is already running ahead of
the studys projections, which work from a 2006 baseline. The study
projected 4,000 MW of new wind capacity in 2007, but 5,244 was actually
installed. Even more appears likely to come on line this year, especially as
T. Boone Pickens has just ordered 1,000 MW of wind turbines for the first
phase of his massive 4,000 MW Pampa Wind Project that is being built in the
Texas Panhandle.
Commenting on the DOE report, Wired Science notes, All by itself, such a
change could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation
(think: coal and natural gas plants) by 25 percent and drop water
consumption by four trillion gallons. These benefits could be achieved at a
cost of about six bucks per person a year, say the report's authors.
For more info please see:
General info in the study: www.20percentwind.org
<http://www.20percentwind.org/>
The full report:
http://www.20percentwind.org/20percent_prepublicationversion_Ch1.pdf
Commentary on the report:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/05/doe-report-wind.html
More info on Pickens project:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/05/pickens-mesa-po.html
NUCLEAR NEWS:
The nuclear industry and their well-oiled PR machine continue to push the
message that nuclear power is back--tan, rested and ready to go--and none
too soon, of course, as its obviously needed now to address climate change.
The reality is that this industry is still moribund and financially adrift.
Their only hope seems to be to garner massive taxpayer funded subsidies,
which some politicians seem more than ready to offer up, at our expense.
GENERAL COVERAGE: Some recent articles worth checking out:
What Nuclear Renaissance? by Christian Parenti, The Nation, May 12, 2008:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti
New Wave of Nuclear Plants Face High Costs, Rebecca Smith, Wall St.
Journal, May 12, 2008:
http://nukefree.org/node/211
Forget Nuclear, by Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich,
Rocky Mountain Institute, April 2008:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
Prices Are Rising: Nuclear Cost Estimates Under Pressure, by Pam Radtke
Russell, EnergyBiz Magazine, May-June 2008:
http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnline/2008-3-may-jun/Financial_
Front_Prices.pdf
JOHN McCAIN ON NUKES & CLIMATE CHANGE: Another set of links worth clicking
on deals with Sen. John McCains recent statements endorsing a French
solution to our energy and climate change woes. (Note: MSE does not
endorse, support or oppose any candidate for office. We do provide info on
candidates issues stands, and will, in the months ahead be taking closer
looks at candidate platforms on energy. Also note that Safe Energy News
published a set of excellent links on Frances nuclear program in the April
2008 issue. This is available on request.)
McCain Calls for 700+ New Nuclear Plants (and 7 Yucca Mountains) Costing $4
Trillion, by Joseph Romm, Huffington Post, May 4, 2008:
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-calls-for-700-new_b_100053
.html>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-calls-for-700-new_b_100053.
html
McCain's French Kiss, by Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, May 13, 2008:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/12/the-li
mits-to-nuclear-mccain-shouldn-t-try-to-follow-french-disaster.aspx
McCain's French Romance, by Carl Pope, Sierra Club blog, May 21, 2008
http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/2008/05/mccains-french.html
NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER:
If anyone ever tells you Theres no way we could dramatically reduce our
energy consumption, heres a little story you can share with them:
Up in Juneau, Alaska on April 16 of this year an avalanche knocked out the
citys main electric transmission line, one that brought the citys 31,000
residents relatively inexpensive power. Suddenly, faced with generating
electricity from diesel generators at nearly five times the price, Juneau
residents have taken dramatic action, and theyve succeeded in cutting their
electric consumption by more than 30 percent, in just a few weeks time.
(Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/us/14juneau.html)
The moral of this story is not that we would do well to quintuple the price
of our electricity, but rather that, if sufficiently motivated, we have the
capability to reduce wasteful uses and to do so quickly. The key is for the
population at large to be motivated.
Price signals motivate almost all of us. Wouldnt it be wonderful though if
we could reach our fellow citizens and get them to act like electricity was
costing 53 cents a kWh (the current Juneau price), even when its not?
Remember, many of the real costs of producing power are not reflected in the
price. These externalities include air and water pollution, toxic and
radioactive waste production, worker exposures, health and safety concerns,
and, of course, climate change.
We should also note that, in the short run, most of the cuts in consumption
came from turning things off and eliminating obvious wasteful practices.
Over the longer haul, however, investments in more efficient technologies,
including appliances, lighting, insulation, etc. could actually save even
more energy, reduce ratepayers bills and do it all painlessly, just by
using less energy per task performed.
Missourians for Safe Energy
804-C E. Broadway
Columbia, MO 65201
573-875-0539
E-mail: mail at mosafeenergy.org
Web site: www.mosafeenergy.org
You are receiving this posting from Missourians for Safe Energy because
you've signed up to receive our once monthly updates. If you'd ever like to
be taken off the list, please send an e-mail to mail at mosafeenergy.org
putting "unsubscribe" in the subject line. If you are not a subscriber and
would like to be, just send us an e-mail asking to be added to the list, and
please tell us where you live.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080528/324e732b/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 33128 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080528/324e732b/attachment-0001.jpe
More information about the Nukenet
mailing list