Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
General News   

Sun, Wind, & Sea Power Obviate Need for Nuke Plants

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   5 comments
Message Sherwood Ross
Become a Fan
  (46 fans)

By Sherwood Ross

Although the nuclear power lobby claims "we need
all energy options," there is no need for the atomic
choice when so many safe, renewable, alternatives are becoming economically feasible.

Rapid strides are being made to harness the power of
the sun, sea, wind, and other natural sources to
generate electricity that does not befoul the
atmosphere and endanger life on the planet.

"The combination of wind power, tidal power, micro-hydro, and biomass make renewable power ever more practical," writes Dr. Helen Caldicott in her book, "Nuclear Power is Not The Answer"(New Press.) "Windpower and biomass are now almost as cheap as coal, and wave power and solar photovoltaics are rapidly becoming competitive."

Caldicott, the forceful antinuclear champion, cites
the findings of the New Economics Foundation that
renewable energy is "quick to build, abundant, and
cheap to harvest, and it is safe, flexible, secure,
and climate friendly."

What's more, "renewable electricity generation
produces electricity at the point of use, making
large-scale grid connections unnecessary" so that
"from an economic standpoint, renewable sources of
energy make a great deal of sense," she writes.

Caldicott argues the U.S. has a special obligation to utilize renewable energy. In 2001, the U.S., with
just 4.5% of the world's population, accounted
for 24% of electricity-related carbon dioxide
emissions into the atmosphere.

Already widely in use in Europe, Caldicott says
wind power "is rapidly becoming the energy of the
future." In 2004, six times as much new wind power was generated as nuclear power, showing that canny
investors are well on the road to an option that
produces results without perils.

Indeed, a study Caldicott cites made by Stanford
University's Çhristina Archer and Mark Jacobson
of 8,000 wind records from every continent, found
a resource of 72 terawatts, 40 times the amount
of electricity used by all nations in year 2000.

The potential of wind power alone, which currently
contributes less than one percent of the world's
electricity, is enormous, particularly in America,
with the veritable unlimited potential of the prairie and Great Lakes states.

Since the mid-1990s, Caldicott points out, hundreds of wind turbines have sprung up in Minnesota built by large corporations that pay farmers from $2,000 to $5,000 per machine. And John Deere and other farm
equipment-makers and local banks, have begun to invest money in wind power farms for their lucrative returns.

U.S. farmers are also cashing in other other types of green power including ethanol and soy diesel refineries in southwest Minnesota and anaerobic digesters that convert manure to green electricity.

"With these types of alternatives, money that normally would be paid out to huge energy monopolies stays in the community,local jobs are created, local banks become involved, and communities prosper," Caldicott said.

At the same time, solar power is becoming ever more
competitive. Ten to 20 trillion watts of solar power
from photovoltaic cells could replace all conventional energy sources currently in use. And a photovoltaic array covering half a sunny area
measuring 100 square miles "could meet all the annual U.S. electricity needs," she adds.

Incentives encouraging solar power use are multiplying rapidly. Thirty states, including California, New York, and Texas support solar initiatives by tacking surcharges onto utility bills. A year ago, California enacted a $3-billion solar initiative to subsidize installation of 1-million rooftop solar collectors over the coming decade.

It's past time to take advantage of the green renewable energy alternatives being developed having no insidious downside. Contrast clean solar or wind power, for example, with electricity that is generated by nuclear plants with their routine venting of radioactive emissions into our rivers and skies, their accidental leaks, their threat of perilous, cancer-causing meltdowns, their vulnerability to terrorist attack, and their radioactive wastes that pollute the areas where those wastes must be entombed and guarded for hundreds of thousands of years! For all these reasons, how long do sensible people have to debate this issue?
(Sherwood Ross is an American reporter. Reach him at
Rate It | View Ratings

Sherwood Ross Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Sherwood Ross worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News and contributed a regular "Workplace" column for Reuters. He has contributed to national magazines and hosted a talk show on WOL, Washington, D.C. In the Sixties he was active as public (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

U.S. Overthrow in the Ukraine Risks Nuclear War With Russia

Radioactive Ammunition Fired in Middle East May Claim More Lives Than Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Obama Expands the American Warfare State


Inside America's Biological Warfare Center

Is George W. Bush Sane?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend