jb943’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mature was the operative word I was using. A mature industry, like nuclear, should be able to stand on it's own without subsidies. Renewables are a nascent industry and if we want them, they need subsidies -- just like any other industry in the history of industries. Renewables are dropping fast in price, just like you would expect a growing industry to do, and at little risk. I mean, are you really arguing against solar? Investing in solar should be a no-brainer by now -- solar is utilizing the largest power source available to us, a nuclear plant remotely located 93 million miles away. If nuclear in the US needs an "investment" to get started again, a second chance if you will, and it truly is all you claim it is, then it should be able to attract private investment capital, no problem -- but it hasn't done so because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny...as far as I know. I don't think it would be wise to have that investment risk fall on taxpayer shoulders.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  STK and MAX8806 -- Lovins's central point is that nuclear costs more than cheaper, more readily available competitors -- like renewables and micropower. It's not a nuclear vs. coal world no more. If you put a price on carbon, it will help nuclear be more competitive, but it will also make renewables and micropower more competitive, so nuclear still loses. He's not cherry picking facts -- those are big IF's listed in the MIT study. Yes, IF all of those IF's were in place, THEN nuclear would be competitive. Not current reality. What are we arguing for or against anyway? Subsidies? For nuclear? A mature industry? Just put a price on carbon and let the best technologies win.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 3 weeks, 3 days ago 159 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The message is garbled, but I like the attempt at perspective. I thought the impact of the tsunami would have been much less had the mangrove ecosystems been preserved as a buffer, most were destroyed due to shrimp farming, so I'm not sure it's totally scientifically flawed. Still garbled though...

  On Rogue 9/11 ad isn’t from WWF -- and its science is bogus posted 2 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I agree with Quinn94. It seems the matter in question was the impact of climate change policy on black americans. The focus should be on the facts in question and the studies done to come up with them -- not to pit one organization against another based on race alone, which is what Boxer did. Boxer said she wanted to put on record that there is a "diversity of opinions." Well, it goes without saying that there is a diversity of opinions, but it's not really opinions that we are interested in. While I agree with Boxer on climate change, I think Boxer was definitely off-base here when it comes to race. Rather, she should have quoted another study, or logically questioned the study Alford was representing, but to quote a resolution -- not even a study -- of another organization based on race is wrong, and a logical fallacy. To use an analogy, I'd be pissed too if my position on the impact of climate change on say, women, was undermined by a politician quoting the opinion of someone like Ann Coulter simply because she's a woman. It's just irrelevant.

  On Racism allegations mar Senate hearing on clean energy economy posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 33 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Experts

  When it comes to the science of climate change, I would absolutely listen to what James Hansen says. He is the expert. But he is not an expert in other areas, namely energy technologies (and he says so himself) or economics. When it comes to deciding what technologies to support, I would go with Amory Lovins -- he's broken down all the numbers in terms of what is the best bang for the buck. No doubt, it starts with energy efficiency, but according to Lovins, nuclear is by far the most expensive technology. It would be easiest to just stop incentives to all technologies, place a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade), and let the market decide what technology wins. Why not? And that way, maybe it will be nuclear, but I would highly predict energy efficiency followed by wind, solar, and geothermal would end up on top.

  Environmental Associate Kingston, NY

  On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 1 week ago 48 Responses