Got satire?

At once funny and sick at the same time.

Imagine: A replacement solution for power plants and energy

As John Lennon said, let's imagine:

--Imagine there is a solution for getting away from burning coal, digging and mining for it

--Imagine there is a way to get away from power plants

--Imagine there's a way to cut down on our pollution

--Imagine there's a way to stop paying a monthly price for power

--Imagine there's a way to use our current office buildings and houses windows to create the electrical power we need

--Imagine, further, that we could use the windows on our cars to do the same--to generate the electricity to run our clean, electric cars

It may be here sooner than we think:

Green: Transparent Photovoltaic Cells Turn Windows Into Solar Panels

Myths of nuclear energy

There is a terrific, if brief, column on "5 myths about nuclear energy" online right now at The Washington Post and I thought a couple of the points were particularly important to note:

3. Democrats oppose nuclear energy; Republicans favor it.

Yes, the GOP base is enthusiastic about nuclear energy, while the Democratic base is skeptical. Moreover, many Republican politicians support assistance to the industry such as loan guarantees for nuclear developers, while many Democrats oppose them. But the politics of nuclear power have changed in recent years, mainly because of climate change.

Democrats, including many supporters in the environmental movement, have become more open to nuclear power as a large-scale zero-emissions energy option. Steven Chu, President Obama’s energy secretary, has been enthusiastic about the nuclear option. When asked to compare coal and nuclear energy in 2009, Chu responded: “I’d rather be living near a nuclear power plant.”

The biggest prospective boost for nuclear power in the past two years was an initiative championed by Democrats and scorned by Republicans: cap-and-trade legislation. Cap-and-trade would have penalized polluting power sources such as coal and gas emitters, thus tilting the playing field toward nuclear power. Department of Energy simulations of the ill-fated Waxman-Markey climate bill projected that it would have increased nuclear power generation by 74 percent in 2030.

Yet although Democrats may have become more accepting of nuclear power, few became fully enthusiastic. Japan’s tragedy may make many reconsider their stance.

This one, though, was the one that, to me, seemed one of the most important and told yet another reason why we should be putting our energy eggs in solar and clean, renewable sources for the future:

4. Nuclear power is the key to energy independence.

When people talk about energy independence, they’re thinking about oil, which we mostly use in vehicles and industrial production. When they talk about nuclear, though, they’re thinking about electricity. More nuclear power means less coal, less natural gas, less hydroelectric power and less wind energy. But unless we start putting nuclear power plants in our cars and semis, more nuclear won’t mean less oil.

And this one, as we've found out yet again, but this time all over Japan seemed especially poignant:

5. Better technology can make nuclear power safe.

Technology can increase safety, but there will always be risks with nuclear power. The Japanese reactors at the center of the current crisis use old technology that increased their vulnerability. Next-generation reactors will be “passively cooled,” which means that if backup power fails like it has in Japan, meltdowns will be avoided more easily. (Passive-cooling systems vary, but their common feature is a lack of dependence on external power.) Other lower-tech improvements, such as stronger containment structures, have also mitigated risk.

But what happened in Japan reminds us that unanticipated vulnerabilities are inevitable in any highly complex system. Careful engineering can minimize the chance of disasters, but it can’t eliminate them. Operators and authorities will need to make sure that they’re prepared to deal with unanticipated failures even as they work to prevent them.

Most energy sources entail risks. In the past year, we’ve seen an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, fatal explosions at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia and now the crisis in Japan. The American public will need to decide whether the risks of nuclear power — compared with those of other energy sources — are too high.

Michael A. Levi , a senior fellow and director of the program on energy security and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of “On Nuclear Terrorism.”

When will we ever learn?  

Now would be nice.

Link to original post:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/5-myths-about-nuclear-energy/2011/03/15/AB9P3Oe_story.html

And now for something completely similar...

(With apologies to Monty Python's creators for appropriating their line).

Now, the latest energy news:

HOUSTON (Reuters) – A natural gas pipeline exploded in north Texas on Monday afternoon, CNN reported.

The blast was originally thought to be an oil well explosion.

An electrical crew was digging a hole when it struck the gas pipeline, an emergency services spokesman in Hood County, Texas, said.

WFAA-TV, the Dallas/Fort Worth station, reported three people were dead and 10 were unaccounted for after the blast.

People dying in large numbers in China, in coal mine explosions and collapses.

People dying in record numbers here, in the US, in the same.

An oil well explosion and leak in the Gulf of Mexico, creating the biggest natural disaster ever.

And now this.

Mind you, this last one is small (unless you're one of the 3 dead or one of their family or friends) but what is it going to take to point us all, as a nation--if not as a world--that we need to invest heavily in the far safer, cleaner and so, smarter solar power, particularly with photovoltaic cells?

If we all have these on our businesses and homes, along with new and better battery technology which, from what I understand is coming along pretty well, all things considered, we would need far less energy companies since we could create a lot of our own power through a calendar year.

Our air would be far cleaner. We would pollute far less, having gotten rid of coal, the transportation of coal and the burning of fossil fuels.

We could also, then, switch the jobs from out of coal mines with their requisite coal dust and health problems for the miners, to much better, cleaner jobs, perhaps installing the solar cells or some other, better, cleaner work.

Is it easy?

Certainly not.

Can we do it overnight?

Again, no way.

But do we need to do it?

I think we all know the answer to that is a resounding "yes".

And it would be "something completely different..."

Link to original post:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100607/us_nm/us_natgas_blast_texas