Trump Says Wind Energy Is The Most Expensive - That's A LIE!

In his Sunday press conference with the President of the European Union, Donald Trump droned on and on about how bad wind energy is - saying the windmills were ugly and ruined the landscape, while being the most expensive kind of energy.

Of course, he was lying (as usual). As the chart above shows, wind energy is actually the cheapest way to produce energy (legalized cost of electricity per megawatt-hour).

Trump was trying to justify his own actions since taking office in his second term. He has removed tax breaks and subsidies from renewable energy sources, while giving more government help to oil and gas companies. And he is removing EPA regulations on cleaning the environment.

His actions on behalf of his buddies in the oil and gas industry are making the environment worse, making it harder to control global climate change, and making sure consumers have to pay more for electricity than is needed.

U.S. Lab Has A Breakthrough In Creation Of Fusion Energy

Fusion energy has long been a dream of scientists. Thanks to a breakthrough by a California lab, we may be one step closer to that becoming a reality. Here is how Evan Helper and Pranshu Verma report it in The Washington Post:

The Department of Energy plans to announce Tuesday that scientists have been able for the first time to produce a fusion reaction that creates a net energy gain — a major milestone in the decades-long, multibillion-dollar quest to develop a technology that provides unlimited, cheap, clean power.

The aim of fusion research is to replicate the nuclear reaction through which energy is created on the sun. It is a “holy grail” of carbon-free power that scientists have been chasing since the 1950s. It is still at least a decade — maybe decades — away from commercial use, but the latest development is likely to be touted by the Biden administration as an affirmation of a massive investment by the government over the years.

Huge amounts of public and private funds have been funneled into the fusion race worldwide, with the aim of ultimately manufacturing fusion machinery that could bring electricity to the grid with no carbon footprint, no radioactive waste and far fewer resources than it takes to harness solar and wind power. Beyond the climate benefits, promoters say it could help bring cheap electricity to impoverished parts of the world.

“To most of us, this was only a matter of time,” said a senior fusion scientist familiar with the work of the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, where the discovery was made.

The development was first reported by the Financial Times on Sunday. It was confirmed by two people familiar with the research, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid getting ahead of the official announcement. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was slated to make the announcement Tuesday at a media event billed as the unveiling of “a major scientific breakthrough.”

The department and the lab declined to comment. A lab official said researchers there are still finalizing their analysis and will not be releasing any official findings before Tuesday.

The science of nuclear fusion relies on smashing two atoms together at incredibly high speeds and transforming the energy from that reaction into electricity that can power homes and offices without emitting carbon into the air or dumping radioactive waste into the environment.

In the decades scientists have been experimenting with fusion reactions, they had not until now been able to create one that produces more energy than it consumes. While the achievement is significant, there are still monumental engineering and scientific challenges ahead.

Creating the net energy gain required engagement of one of the largest lasers in the world, and the resources needed to recreate the reaction on the scale required to make fusion practical for energy production are immense. More importantly, engineers have yet to develop machinery capable of affordably turning that reaction into electricity that can be practically deployed to the power grid.

Building devices that are large enough to create fusion power at scale, scientists say, would require materials that are extraordinarily difficult to produce. At the same time, the reaction creates neutrons that put a tremendous amount of stress on the equipment creating it, such that it can get destroyed in the process.

And then there is the question of whether the technology could be perfected in time to make a dent in climate change.

Even so, researchers and investors in fusion technology hailed the breakthrough as an important advancement.

U.S. Is "Energy Independent" - That Didn't Reduce Gas Prices

Republicans have only one solution for high gas prices -- energy independence. The problem with that "solution" is that for the last six months the United States has been energy independent, and gas prices continue to rise.

Here is how Catherine Ramped describes the situation in The Washington Post:

Good news: We’re energy independent again. Huzzah!

Bad news: “Energy independence” has turned out to be a hollow victory.

Gasoline is inching toward $5 per gallon nationwide, and Americans are furious. Fortunately, Republican politicians have been arguing for months that they have a solution: Just “return” the United States to “energy independence,” as we experienced under former president Donald Trump. Easy peasy.

“We have the skills, and we have the resources right here in the United States to be energy independent,” says Sen. Joni Ernst. (R-Iowa). “We shouldn’t be subjected to these prices.”

Other GOP lawmakers have even given a specific timeline for this elusive goal. “We have watched this president go after energy, so we can no longer be energy independent,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said over the weekend. His pitch to midterm voters: “In 156 days, we’re going to become energy independent.”

Astonishingly, McCarthy and his fellow Republicans have delivered on their promise early. Because, as it turns out, the United States is alreadyenergy independent — and has been for six months, according to data available through March.

Somehow no one appears to have noticed.

“Energy independence” is a political slogan in search of a concrete definition, but based on context, conservatives appear to be referring to situations when the United States sells more oil and petroleum products to the rest of the world than it buys from other countries. The United States initially became a net exporter of oil and petroleum products in late 2019, while Trump was in office, for the first time since at least the 1950s..

There were a few months in late 2020 and early 2021 when that vaunted new trend reversed, and the United States again imported slightly more than we exported. But even then, total petroleum production and consumption still remained nearly even.

That was the loss of “energy independence” that Republicans often decry, and (incorrectly) blame on President Biden’s supposed “war on fossil fuels” rather than the pandemic and its volatile effects on petroleum markets.

But even that quickly reverted back again. Since last October, we’ve been exporting more than we import each month, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an independent government statistical agency. That is, we got back to “energy independence” under Biden, but Republicans forgot to update their talking points.

And what of the reports that fossil-fuel firms ratcheted down production in the past couple of years, allegedly because Biden was waging war on them?

It’s true that earlier in the pandemic (i.e. pre-Biden), energy production declined both domestically and internationally. No surprise, given that oil prices briefly turned negative. A lot of companies went bankrupt and investors lost money. In fact, Trump helped negotiate a cut to global oil production to help stabilize plummeting prices, another fact Republicans sometimes conveniently forget.

Even so, U.S. crude oil production has been rising again since about late 2020. Perhaps not as quickly as consumers would like, given other disruptions to global markets, but it’s still rising. In fact, we’re producing about as much crude today as we did in 2019, and are not that far below the record levels of production from early 2020. In other words, in the documented history of U.S. oil production, there has been only about a year when U.S. oil producers pumped more per day than is the case right now.

So congrats, America, we’ve achieved “energy independence,” and we’re reasonably close to the highest levels of oil production in recorded history. But what good did any of this do us?

Despite this prized achievement, U.S. petroleum prices remain painfully high. That’s because even if we can meet all our consumption needs with domestic production, oil prices are still set by global markets. If a major world supplier such as Russia suddenly gets taken offline, that drives global prices up — including here in the United States.

If we actually want to get energy costs down, if we want to completely insulate ourselves from global price shocks, what we ultimately need is the technological investments that keep energy cheap, reliable and, coincidentally, clean.

That means investing in renewables, including: installing grid-scale solar wherever possible. Encouraging consumers and businesses to transition to electric vehicles, stoves and heat. And especially, developing better battery technology.

Despite the perception that renewable energy is some expensive, indulgent cause of liberal tree huggers, it’s already quite cheap. It’s cheaper, for instance, to build and operate an entirely new wind or solar plant than it is to continue operating an existing coal facility. But without better storage technology, we’re stuck with using easily storable fossil fuels, which are dirtier and subject to geopolitical turmoil.

We can’t control what the Russians do. We can’t control what the Saudis do. What we can do is electrify everything and make sure the electricity we use is cheap. That’s the solution if you want to stick it to oil companies, as many on the left do; it’s also the solution if you want abundant, inexpensive and truly independent energy sources, as the right has been coveting for decades.

Texans Not Convinced The Energy Grid Has Been Fixed

In February of last year, the Texas power grid suffered a massive failure, leaving 4.5 million people without electricity and about 700 dead. As we approach the anniversary of that power grid failure (and more bad weather on the way), many Texans are not convinced that the state's Republican legislature (and Governor) have fixed the problem.

They claimed to have fixed the problem, but the truth is they did very little other than to ask electric suppliers to winterize their systems. But they did not force that winterization, and it is unlikely that many suppliers did what was necessary to prevent another failure. Instead, they are hoping that Texas is not hit again by such a massive winter storm.

That is not enough. With global climate change continuing to get worse, it is likely Texas will see another massive winter storm -- if not this year, then in the next few years.

As the chart above shows, 47% of Texas voters think the energy grid is not prepared to weather another massive winter storm.

The chart reflects the result of the new Dallas Morning News / UT at Tyler Poll -- done between January 18th and 25th of a sample of 1,082 registered voters in Texas, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

Texas GOP Officials Are Lying To Cover Up Their Own Failures

As Texans struggled to keep warm in the midst of the winter weather disaster (and some even died), the Republicans running the state government reacted in their normal way -- THEY LIED!

They tried to blame the power blackouts on the "green new deal" (none of which has been enacted in the state), and renewable energy sources (which power companies neglected to weatherize.

Other states have much worse winter weather, and yet they don't have power blackouts because of it. That's because they have been smart enough to protect their systems from winter harsh conditions. Texas did not! They were warned a decade ago that this could happen, but the legislature just told energy producers that they could winterize if they wanted, but did not require it (so they didn't). In other words, the current disaster in Texas was predicted and preventable, but the Republicans running the state failed in their duty to protect the citizens of the state.

Here is an editorial from the editorial board of The Washington Post on the situation. They have seen through the lies of Texas GOP officials.

TEXAS’S WEATHER and power crisis continued to leave millions shivering across the state Wednesday even as the state’s Republican leaders seemingly lied about the reasons for the disaster. They blamed the blackouts on the state’s supposed overreliance on wind power and warned that transitioning to renewable electricity would spread Texas’s problems across the nation. Nonsense. 

The Texas fiasco offers many lessons about keeping the lights on — lessons that Congress and state leaders must act on in the coming months. Not among them is the need to cancel a transition to cleaner sources of energy.

Frozen wind turbines represent only a small fraction of the problem in Texas. The real failure was a lack of preparation. Wind power generally slumps during the Texas winter, so state regulators do not assume they will get much from that power source. Rather, their plans rely heavily on natural gas power plants — and they are the predominant culprits in the current emergency. Across the state, the deep freeze shut down equipment to supply and burn natural gas for electricity, just as demand for electric heating surged and as demand for natural gas for home heating spiked. Freezing also forced one of the state’s nuclear power plants offline. If the state had been more reliant on coal power, as it was a decade ago, frozen coal piles could well have led to similar power plant failures.

Natural gas plants, fuel pipelines, nuclear power stations and, yes, wind turbines can all operate in frigid temperatures. They failed in Texas because they were not hardened to withstand the sort of severe weather that struck the state this week. This was avoidable. The state saw freezing temperatures that challenged the power grid in 2011, after which the need for system upgrades and better planning was obvious. The state did too little over the next decade, and millions of Texans are now paying the price. Blaming renewables is a dishonest way to score political points and divert blame.

Humanity has no choice but to transition to cleaner sources of energy, but the build-out will require smart planning to ensure reliability. That means not only that utilities must deploy methods to store intermittent renewable electricity and that the government must invest in new interstate transmission lines to transfer energy from places where the wind is blowing to others where it is not. It also means building energy infrastructure to resist weather extremes that are likely to be more common. It is certain that heat waves, droughts and wildfires will become more frequent. Scientists are also assessing whether sudden cold snaps like the one that shut down Texas could be related to rapid polar warming, which might be disturbing frigid air currents that generally stay north.

Congress is focused on providing another big covid-19 relief bill. But as federal lawmakers craft their package, they must be sure to leave enough political and fiscal capacity to address in coming months the country’s massive infrastructure needs. That decades-overdue initiative must include an ambitious program to fight and harden the nation against climate change.

Public Prefers Protecting Environment Over More Drilling

The Republican Party is not enamored of conservation and developing alternative energy sources. They long ago sold out to the big oil, gas, and coal industries -- giving them a myopic view of energy production.

And it seems that Donald Trump shares that GOP viewpoint. He has filled his cabinet with people beholding to the fossil fuel industry (Tillerson at State -- former head of Exxon, Pruitt at EPA -- who sued gov many times to protect oil & coal companies, Zinke at Interior Dept. -- who wants to open federal preservation areas to drilling and mining, etc.). Trump is also trying to put the Dakota Access Pipeline back on track.

But once again, Trump and his Republican cohorts are bucking the trend of what the public wants to see happen in this country. The public prefers searching for alternative energy sources over increasing fossil fuel production by a whopping 48 point margin. And by a 25 point margin, they favor protecting the environment over prioritizing energy production.

Trump and the GOP seem to be making a habit out of doing the opposite of what Americans want done -- and they are continuing that with their energy policy.

The charts above are from a recent Gallup Poll -- done between March 1st and 5th of a random national sample of 1,018 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

About 15% Of Texas Energy Is Now Supplied By Wind

(This chart shows the 2016 energy sources in Texas.)

Although coal and natural gas still provide most of the electricity for homes and businesses in Texas, wind energy is growing fast. In 2016, it has provided nearly 15% of all energy. The following article is by Katherine Tweed at Green Tech Media.

First, some definitions:

Megawatt -- unit of power equal to 1 million watts.

Gigawatt -- init of power equal to 1 billion watts.

1 Megawatt will provide enough energy to supply the needs of 400 to 900 homes (depending on the time of year and location of those homes).

Tweed writes:

Texas grid operator ERCOT announced a new record for wind on Monday. For the first time, wind provided more than 15,000 megawatts of electricity to the state on a single day. 

The record wind on Sunday supplied an average of 41 percent of electricity throughout the day. But it was not an all-time record for wind in Texas. On one day in March, wind supplied more than 48 percent of load during one hour.

It is not the hour-by-hour records that are impressive, however.

Texas is already the clear leader in wind power in the U.S., and that lead is widening. Texas has more than 18,000 megawatts installed and another 5,000 megawatts under construction, according to the American Wind Energy Association.

Wind power made up an average of 11.7 percent of electricity in 2015 in Texas, a figure that will be at least 14.7 in 2016, according to ERCOT.

The final tally of wind power’s contribution to the Texas electric grid will likely be slightly higher, as the wind blows harder in winter and therefore wind power contributions to the power mix usually go up.

Of course, the growing share of wind is still half the amount of coal in Texas and about one-third of natural gas generation.

Coal and natural gas may dominate in Texas, but the investment the state has made in transmission and improving renewable energy forecasts could allow for even more wind and solar in the future.

The wind power in Texas is coming from across the state, including the Texas Panhandle, the west and the south. Texas’ success with wind power is largely due to its Competitive Renewable Energy Zones, which were identified mostly in West Texas and the state's Panhandle region. A key to the project was about $7 billion in transmission lines to carry the wind power where it is needed.

With wind power flowing across the state, solar power is now starting to catch on to take advantage of the transmission lines. In 2015, ERCOT did not even list solar as a fuel source on its annual demand and energy report.

In 2016, the figures are still very small -- but they're growing. ERCOT reports about 685 megawatts of solar will be on-line in Texas in 2016, up from less than 300 in 2015. For the first time, solar energy received its own designation as a fuel type in ERCOT’s annual demand and energy report.

Large-scale solar could grow quickly in Texas, but will not even come close to wind. By 2020, ERCOT expects 2.5 gigawatts of solar on its system, compared to more than 28 gigawatts of wind.

Most Americans Now Oppose Nuclear Energy

When global climate change became an issue, a lot of people decided that nuclear energy would once again become a viable alternative to the use of fossil fuels. But the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan threw cold water on that premise, and since then the popularity of nuclear power has been decreasing (see top chart). A new Gallup Poll (done between March 2nd and 6th of a random national sample of 1,019 adults, with a 4 point margin of error) shows that currently about 54% of Americans oppose nuclear power. This is the first time Gallup has found a majority opposing nuclear power.

The second chart shows the percentage in each political division that favor the use of nuclear power. Note that only 34% of Democrats and 46% of Independents support nuclear power. The only political division with a majority supporting nuclear power is Republicans (53%).

Americans are starting to believe that there are affordable, renewable, and non-polluting alternatives (solar, wind, wave, etc.) to the use of either nuclear power or fossil fuel power.

Hillary Clinton's Stand On Climate Change And Energy

(This photo of Hillary Clinton is from abcnews.go.com.)

From hillaryclinton.com:

Hillary’s plan is designed to deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference last December—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. Her plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050. Her approach will catalyze new investment and economic opportunity across the country, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, reduce energy bills and save families money, make our country more secure, and protect our families and communities from pollution.

As president, Hillary will:

• Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards,including the Clean Power Plan, which will prevent 3,600 premature deaths and 90,000 asthma attacks annually, and efficiency standards for cars, trucks and appliances that are already reducing energy costs for American households and businesses by over $75 billion per year.
• Launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge to partner with states, cities, and rural communities and give them the tools and resources they need to go beyond federal standards in cutting carbon pollution and expanding clean energy. The Clean Energy Challenge will also help ensure all Americans share in the benefits of a clean energy economy by encouraging solar and energy efficiency investments in low-income communities.
• Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good paying jobs and careers. Hillary has a comprehensive plan for making existing energy infrastructure cleaner and safer, unlocking new investment, and forging a climate compact with Canada and Mexico to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and accelerate clean energy deployment across the continent.
• Ensure safe and responsible energy production. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we must ensure that the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table. Hillary knows there are some places where we should keep fossil fuels in the ground or under the ocean.
• Reform leasing on public lands. As president, Hillary would reform fossil fuel leasing and significantly expand clean energy production on public lands, from wind in Wyoming to solar in Nevada.
• End wasteful tax subsidies for oil and gas companies. Oil and gas companies have enjoyed billions in tax breaks for decades. Hillary would end those wasteful subsidies and invest in clean energy.
• Cut methane emissions across the economy. Hillary would cut emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, by 40-45 percent and put in place strong standards for reducing leaks from both new and existing sources.
• Revitalize coal communities. Building a 21st century clean energy economy will create new jobs and industries, protect public health, and reduce carbon pollution. But we can’t ignore the impact this transition is already having on coal communities. Hillary’s $30 billion plan to revitalize coal communities will ensure coal miners, power plant operators, transportation workers, and their families get the respect they deserve and the benefits they have earned; invest in economic diversification and job creation; and make coal communities an engine of US economic growth in the 21st century, as they have been for generations.

"In spite of the strongest possible scientific consensus about what climate change means for our environment, economy, health, and future, there are still some who deny the facts. They’re intent on obstructing progress. We can’t let them win this fight. We have no choice. There is no Planet B."

HILLARY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2015

Public Wants More Emphasis Put On Clean Energy Sources

All we seem to hear from congressional Republicans is "drill, baby, drill". They want our government to put the emphasis on drilling for (and using) more oil -- probably because they get huge campaign donations from the giant oil companies. But it turns out that their own party is the only supporters for that. About 60% of the GOP base wants more emphasis put on oil production.

But the rest of America doesn't agree. Only 41% of the general public wants to see more emphasis put on oil production (38% of Independents and 28% of Democrats). And nuclear and coal forms of energy get even less support. Even the Republicans don't show a majority wanting to put more emphasis on them.

The public really wants the government to put more emphasis on clean (and renewable) forms of energy -- especially solar (79%) and wind (70%). Finishing in third is natural gas (55%) -- the cleanest -burning of the fossil fuels (although it's production through "fracking" can destroy soil and water).

These numbers are from a recent Gallup Poll -- done between March 5th and 8th of a random national sample of 1,025 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points.

American Public Wants To Protect The Environment

The congressional Republicans have made it very clear that they are willing to sacrifice the environment to protect giant corporations (especially the huge oil, gas, coal, and energy-producing corporations). They oppose the president's new restrictions on energy pollution, continue to protect the huge subsidies granted to those corporations (many of whom don't pay any taxes on billions in profits), and continue to demand substantial cuts in EPA funding.

This is just one more area in which they are out-of-step with most Americans. The Gallup Poll recently asked Americans if energy development was more important (even if it harmed the environment) or if protecting the environment was more important (even if it hurt energy development). Americans preferred protecting the environment by an 11 point gap -- and the only group preferring to protect the energy corporations was the Republican Party. Both Independents and Democrats said protecting the environment was more important.

This is one more area (among many) that could hurt the Republicans in this coming election.

The survey was taken between March 6th and 9th of a random national sample of 1,048 adults, and has a 4 point margin of error.

The Green Party Warns Of A "Nuclear Omnicide"

Anyone capable of facing the truth knows we are destroying our environment with the massive burning of fossil fuels, and we are currently in the process of leaving a planet to our children and grandchildren that is not as good as the one we inherited. While we should be ashamed of this, we should also do something about it. Unfortunately, one of the solutions suggested is to return to energy produced by nuclear power. But before we do that, we need to remember Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. And we all need to read and think on this article by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Harvey Wasserman (originally posted over at Truthdig). He says:

In the 35 years since the March 28, 1979, explosion and meltdown at Three Mile Island, fierce debate has raged over whether humans were killed there. In 1986 and 2011, Chernobyl and Fukushima joined the argument. Whenever these disasters happen, there are those who claim that the workers, residents and military personnel exposed to radiation will be just fine.

Of course we know better. We humans won’t jump into a pot of boiling water. We’re not happy when members of our species start dying around us. But frightening new scientific findings have forced us to look at a larger reality: the bottom-up damage that radioactive fallout may do to the entire global ecosystem. 

When it comes to our broader support systems, the corporate energy industry counts on us to tolerate the irradiation of our fellow creatures, those on whom we depend, and for us to sleep through the point of no return.

Case in point is a new Smithsonian report on Chernobyl, one of the most terrifying documents of the atomic age.

Written by Rachel Nuwer, “Forests Around Chernobyl Aren’t Decaying Properly” cites recent field studies in which the normal cycle of dead vegetation rotting into the soil has been disrupted by the exploded reactor’s radioactive fallout.

“Decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination,” Nuwer writes. “These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil.”

Put simply: The microorganisms that form the active core of our ecological bio-cycle have apparently been zapped, leaving tree trunks, leaves, ferns and other vegetation to sit eerily on the ground whole, essentially in a mummified state.

Reports also indicate a significant shrinkage of the brains of birds in the region and negative impacts on the insect and wildlife populations.

Similar findings surrounded the accident at Three Mile Island. Within a year, a three-reporter team from the Baltimore News-American cataloged massive radiation impacts on both wild and farm animals in the area. The reporters and the Pennsylvania Department of Health confirmed widespread damage to birds, bees and large kept animals such as horses, whose reproductive rate collapsed in the year after the accident.

Other reports also documented deformed vegetation and domestic animals being born with major mutations, including a dog born with no eyes and cats with no sense of balance.

To this day, Three Mile Island’s owners claim no humans were killed by radiation there, an assertion hotly disputed by local downwinders.

Indeed, Dr. Alice Stewart established in 1956 that a single X-ray to a pregnant woman doubles the chance that her offspring will get leukemia. During the accident at Three Mile Island, the owners crowed that the meltdown’s radiation was equivalent “only” to a single X-ray administered to all area residents.

Meanwhile, if the airborne fallout from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could do that kind of damage to both infants and the nonhuman population on land, how is Fukushima’s continuous gusher of radioactive water affecting the life support systems of our oceans?

In fact, samplings of 15 tuna caught off the coast of California indicate all were contaminated with fallout from Fukushima.

Instant as always, the industry deems such levels harmless. The obligatory comparisons to living in Denver, flying cross country and eating bananas automatically follow.

But what’s that radiation doing to the tuna themselves? And to the krill, the phytoplankton, the algae, amoeba and all the other microorganisms on which the ocean ecology depends?

Cesium and its Fukushima siblings are already measurable in Alaska and northwestern Canada. They’ll hit California this summer. The corporate media will mock those parents who are certain to show up at the beaches with radiation detectors. Concerns about the effect on children will be jovially dismissed. The doses will be deemed, as always, “too small to have any impact on humans.”

But reports of a “dead zone” thousands of miles into the Pacific do persist, along with disappearances of salmon, sardines, anchovies and other ocean fauna.

Of course, atomic reactors are not the only source of radioactive fallout. Atmospheric bomb testing from 1945 to 1963 raised background radiation levels throughout the ecosphere. Those isotopes are still with us.

Burning coal spews still more radiation into our air, along with mercury and other lethal pollutants. Fracking for gas draws toxins up from the earth’s crust.

Industry apologists say reactors can moderate the climate chaos caused by burning those fossil fuels. But fighting global weirding with atomic power is like trying to cure a fever with a lethal dose of X-ray.

On a warmed, poisoned planet, the synergistic impact of each new radioactive hit is multiplied. All doses are overdoses.

In 1982, Adm. Hyman Rickover, founder of the nuclear navy, put it this way:

Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth; that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life—fish or anything.

Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet ... reduced and made it possible for some form of life to begin, and it started in the seas. ...

Now, when we are back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible. ...

But every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it’s far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.

We know from Dr. Alice Stewart the dangers of even a single X-ray to a pregnant human. And from Dr. John Gofman, former chief medical officer of the Atomic Energy Commission, that nuclear power is an instrument of “premeditated mass murder.”

At Three Mile Island, the mutated vegetation, animal and human infant deaths still remain a part of the immutable record.

Chernobyl still lacks a permanent sarcophagus, leaving the surrounding area vulnerable to continued radiation leakage. Fukushima daily dumps more than 300 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific. The stacks and spigots are still gushing at more than 400 reactors across the globe. The next disaster is already in progress.

The good news is that the same green energy technologies that can bury nuclear power can take the fossil burners down with them. They create jobs, profits, ecological harmony and peace. They’re on a steep trajectory toward epic success.

As the reactor industry’s lethal isotopes gut our ecosystems, from bottom to top, our tolerance for these “safe doses” falls to zero. We may not fall over dead from them immediately, but the larger biospheric clock is ticking. We need to act.

Public's Views On Energy More Reasonable Than Leaders

Right-wingers, like the "Witch of Wasilla", have tried to convince Americans that the way out of our energy problems was to just increase production of the fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) -- and their mantra was "drill, baby, drill". And after the 2010 elections they were able to seek that to many people. Note on the chart above that in 2011 those wanting more production nearly caught up (closed to within 7 points) with those who say more conservation is the best answer.

But that was short-lived. The current gap favors conservation by 23 points, which is more like opinions since 2000. People know that we are not going to drill our way out of our energy problems. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels, especially oil, and we are at or near the point where production will begin to fall no matter how much drilling is done. The only reasonable answer is more conservation, coupled with alternate and renewable energy sources (wind, solar, etc.).

The chart above was made from information in a series of Gallup Polls -- with the last being between March 6th and 9th of a random nationwide sample of 1,048 adults (with a 4 point margin of error). Here are some other results from that poll, showing what the general public supports and opposes. It shows that most Americans are a lot smarter than the teabaggers when it comes to energy.

Government should spend more money developing solar & wind power.
Support...............67%
Oppose...............32%

Government should spend more money developing alternate fuels for automobiles.
Support...............66%
Oppose...............33%

Higher emissions and pollution standards should be set for businesses and industry.
Support...............65%
Oppose...............35%

Federal Environmental regulations should be more strongly enforced.
Support...............64%
Oppose...............34%

Mandatory controls should be placed on emissions of CO2 & other greenhouse gases.
Support...............63%
Oppose...............35%

Set higher emissions standards for automobiles.
Support...............62%
Oppose...............35%

Set stricter standards for extracting natural gas, including fracking.
Support...............58%
Oppose...............37%

Expand the use of nuclear energy.
Support...............47%
Oppose...............51%

Some People Refuse To Change (Even If Change Is Better)

Back in 2007, a law was passed that said the inefficient incandescent light bulbs must be phased out by this year. Manufacturers are no longer allowed to make these bulbs, and retailers may not import them from other countries. The reason for this is their inefficiency. They use much more energy than the newer style bulbs (and don't last near as long). The change will help this nation to cut down on energy use.

The truth is that the United States is late to this change. Some other countries, like Australia, phased out these old style bulbs five years ago. But some people just hate change, and they are busy trying to buy up all the old incandescent bulbs while they are still available (with some stockpiling hundreds of them). Some of these people think they are saving money, since the new bulbs cost more. They are wrong. The new bulbs are not just more efficient, they will last several times longer than the incandescent bulbs (and when you add up the cost of all the old bulbs to last as long as one of the new bulbs, you actually save money buying the more expensive new bulbs).

Others are trying to turn this into something political -- claiming that President Obama is taking away their "freedom of choice". And there are Republicans in Congress trying to take advantage of these dimwits -- by introducing bills to allow production of the old bulbs again. Of course, this is just silly. President Obama had nothing to do with this law, since it was signed into existence by President Bush. But the Obama-haters are not above inventing excuses to dislike the president.

Personally, I think this law makes sense. It will save energy for the country, and it will save money for consumers in the long run. I have been using the new bulbs for years now, and I love them. It's a rare occasion when I have to change a light bulb these days (and I like that). In fact, I can't remember the last time I had to buy any light bulbs, but I know it was well over two years now.

But there are people who resist any kind of change -- even a change that is better for them (and their country). These people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new reality, but they'll eventually learn (just like they eventually accepted past changes).

Green Party Says "Fracking" Is Neither Inevitable Nor Unbeatable

Energy companies, and to a large extent federal and state governments, have been touting "fracking" as an answer to the energy problems facing this nation. (Fracking is the injection of water and dangerous chemicals into the ground to force natural gas to the surface where it can be harvested.) Unfortunately, those chemicals are believed to be poisoning both the earth and the ground water where it is being used, and it also wastes millions of gallons of water in areas of the country (like Texas) where water is a scarce resource.

But the problems of fracking have been covered up or glossed over in many areas, in the name of short-term corporate profits -- and as we know, in our corporate-controlled economy short-term profits are the only thing that matters (regardless of what that does to our environment or long-term economic outlook). But all may not be lost -- at least not yet.

The Green Party is now speaking out on the subject, and they say with a little effort that fracking may not be either "inevitable or unbeatable". Here is how Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Steve Breyman (pictured above) describes the party's position in an October 3rd memo:

High-volume hydraulic fracturing (better known as “fracking”), the process by which more and more oil and gas in the United States is produced, is good at some near-term things. It’s brought down natural gas prices for consumers. It’s resulted in several boom-towns across America’s shale formations. It’s brought back to life old wells uneconomical to pump through other means. It’s generated significant funds for gas companies and some lucky leaseholders. It’s created thousands of jobs. It’s plowed much needed tax revenues into a few state and local government coffers.

But that’s the problem—fracking is all about now. Fracking is the latest example of short-term political-economic thinking: boom and bust, get-rich-quick. It’s the present moment’s version of the same-old same-old extractive, penetrative, violent resource exploitation model that’s reigned for most of U.S. history. The same model that has us prop up the Saudi royal family, regularly foul our oceans, coastlines and rivers, clear cut forests, carve years off the lives of millions from dirty air, blow the tops off of mountains, spend several hundreds of billions annually on sea lane protection and ‘stabilization operations,’ and load the atmosphere with carbon.

Natural gas is hardly “the bridge [fuel] to the future,” as described by the Obama administration and other proponents. Its current abundance and relative affordability—barring full-cost accounting—postpones the transition to a green energy future. Fracking for gas fragments forests, poisons nearby air and the people who breathe it, threatens scarce fresh water aquifers, crowds rural roads with particulate spewing trucks, and spreads STDs, among other predictable delights.

Fracked gas corrupts state legislators and the Environmental Protection Agency (which does its darnedest to cover up fracking’s effects on ecosystem and human health). It leads to calls for LNG export facilities. Fracking unfairly competes with wind and solar to generate electricity (because, among other reasons, the practice is exempt from the several federal environmental laws which would restrict or make it illegal). Fracking requires a giant network of new pipelines and compressor stations, results in an extraordinary volume of toxic and sometimes radioactive waste water (sure to come back to haunt us no matter how deeply we inject it into the earth), stimulates earthquakes in the most unlikely of places, and divides communities.

Fracking corrupts scientists (and their university-housed minions) on gas company payrolls, tempts corporate-affiliated national environmental groups to back it, justifies cowardly “all of the above” energy policies, and stunts non-fossil fuel research and development. Fracking in Texas’ Barnett Shale—in the midst of a drought of biblical proportions—has several towns literally running out of water. Fracking for oil in North Dakota leads to the flaring of natural gas, a gross waste and major cause of disintegrating air quality. Fracking in floodplains brings us the spectacle of drowned wells and untold toxic chemicals on the loose in Colorado after three months of rain fell in twenty-four hours (an extreme weather event made more likely by burning natural gas and other dead dinosaurs).

Fracking is inherently sneaky and dishonest. Land men work their magic to swindle country folk out of a fair return for their mineral rights, and make it very difficult to ever get out of a contract (even after its expiration). Oil companies secretly frack for oil in the Santa Barbara Channel (location of the infamous 1969 spill), hiding the activity from regulators and the public. Fracking firms refuse to divulge the full contents of the frightening cocktail known as frack fluid. No one (including the U.S. Geological Survey) can say with a high degree of certainty how much gas actually lies buried in one-time biomass, subject to sedimentation, volcanic activity and pressure of hundreds of millions of years. Gas companies spoil drinking water wells then force victims to sign confidentiality agreements as part of settlements (enabling the firms to continue to lie about their records). Emergency room physicians in Pennsylvania are barred from explaining to patients that fracking was the likely culprit for their acute or chronic ailments.  Fracking is so seductive that even California—laboratory for nearly every good energy and environmental policy of the past half century—is unable to pass legislation that ensures environmental health.

Fracking is not, however, inevitable or unbeatable. The fierce and growing resistance in New York to pumping millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals under extraordinary pressure thousands of feet below the surface has stayed the hand of a governor (with presidential aspirations) otherwise eager to say yes. A recent poll in New York found opposition to fracking at a historic high. Earth First!ers stage tree sits to stymie further destruction in the Keystone State. The University of Tennessee failed to solicit a single bid for the right to plunder its thousands of acres of forest. Smart investors are selling leases and otherwise getting out before the inevitable bust. Fracking has likely already peaked. Intensified public pressure on elected and appointed officials must make sure of that.