« Courts - "Time for Cameras: Those who are interested shouldn't have to line up overnight to watch Supreme Court debates" | Main | Courts - State trial court information online »

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Environment - "Coalition sues Land Office over wind farms"; energy alternatives, each with proponents and opponents

Wind Farms. The Austin American-Statesman had a story Wed. headed: "Coalition sues Land Office over wind farms: Groups, including King Ranch, want to require extensive environmental review of wind projects." The NY Times had a story by Felicity Barringer on June 6, 2006 headed "Debate Over Wind Power Creates Environmental Rift." A quote: "Wind farms on the empty prairies of North Dakota? Fine. But not, Mr. Boone insists, in the mountainous terrain of southwestern Pennsylvania, western Maryland or West Virginia, areas where 15 new projects have been proposed." In 2003 the Chesapeake Bay Journal had a story headed "Wind turbine proposals for Atlantic Coast face challenges".

Coal Plants. "Committed to Coal, and in a Hurry, Too" was the headline to this story in the Nov. 7th, 2006 NY Times. "Midwest Has 'Coal Rush,' Seeing No Alternative" was the headline to a story March 10th, 2007 on the front-page of the Washington Post.

"Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Gives Duke Energy Indiana Approval to Build Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Plant" was the headline to this ILB entry from Nov. 20th, 2007.

Nuclear Energy. "Some rethinking nuke opposition" was the headline to this March 22nd, 2007 story by William M. Welch USA Today. Some quotes:

With global warming a rising concern, some environmentalists are rethinking nuclear power because it emits zero greenhouse gases.

"You can't just write nuclear off," says Judi Greenwald, director of innovative solutions with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an environmental research and advocacy group. "I think everybody feels you have to at least look again" at nuclear power.

That attitude is markedly different from the revulsion that environmental groups have directed toward nukes for most of the past three decades.

That opposition is one of a number of factors that nuclear advocates say put in place a virtual ban on new nuclear plants since the late 1970s. * * *

Some environmentalists aren't buying. "We remain steadfastly opposed to nuclear power," Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said. "We're not willing to believe they are as safe as the industry is willing to portray them."

The Sierra Club says it has not wavered in its stand against nuclear power. Greenpeace USA also says it finds nuclear power unacceptable.

Both organizations cite the unresolved debate over long-term storage of radioactive wastes and economic viability because of huge construction costs. They also worry about the possibility of spent fuel getting into the wrong hands and being used for weapons.

"I think there are a lot better carbon-free alternatives for producing electricity," says Christopher Flavin, president of Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research group. * * *

Nuclear already plays a big role in the USA. There are 104 nuclear reactors operating at 66 plants in the country, producing one-fifth of the nation's electricity, according to the Department of Energy. The highest user is Vermont, which gets 72.5% of its electricity from nuclear.

Coal provides far more electricity in the USA and creates greenhouse gases when burned.

Patrick Moore — a founder of Greenpeace who is now co-chairman of the industry-funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which advocates for nuclear power — says coal-fired power plants pose a greater threat to the environment. He says environmental groups recognize that, even those not yet officially embracing nuclear power.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 6, 2007 02:48 PM
Posted to Environment