I’m writing about Robert Sharpe’s thoughtful letter, “Jail is not a pot deterrent” (Letters, Nov. 26). According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 44 percent of adults believe that pot is just as dangerous as, or more dangerous than, alcohol (http://tinyurl.com/lqmqqz). Until this false belief can be changed, marijuana will probably remain a criminalized substance. The fact is, marijuana is an extremely safe product. (No reported deaths in the 5,000-year history of its use.) People consume marijuana for the same reasons they consume alcohol. Why not offer adults the much safer alternative to alcohol?
Kirk Muse/Mesa, Ariz.
Nice Copenhagen story
(“Boulder to Denmark,” cover story, Nov. 19.) Thank you for compiling and publishing your extensive article about Boulder experts who relate to the issues engaging the forthcoming Copenhagen gathering.
I am contacting many of the people you identified, encouraging them to become informed about ocean thermal energy (my specialty), and to spread the word about it to people concerned about global warming, especially those who will be present at Copenhagen.
Although ocean thermal technology has great promise for providing a significant share of global energy needs, and for mitigating global warming, it has been given short shrift by the U.S. establishment, starting with the Reagan administration. Nurtured by the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, R&D on ocean thermal was one of the six major federal renewable energy R&D programs, along with wind, photovoltaics, biofuels, heating/cooling of buildings and solar thermal. In 1973, I left my NOAA career here in favor of joining the budding federal solar energy program, where I became the first ocean thermal program manager.
The Copenhagen meeting looks like a good opportunity to help draw people’s attention to ocean thermal energy. Accordingly, I posted some information about ocean thermal’s potential on the Copenhagen Climate Council’s website at http://tinyurl.com/yh3x43w. For more details, one can click on the link there leading to my slides for the Sept. 11 luncheon talk on ocean thermal that I presented to the Boulder Rotary Club.
Please note in the above Copenhagen posting, the statement that ocean thermal plants and plantships would be well-positioned to handle deep-ocean sequestration, if and when that possibility becomes technically and economically viable. Also, since current manufacture of copious amounts of ammonia — largely for fertilizer, using fossil fuels as feedstocks — accounts for a whopping 5 percent or so of the total carbon dioxide being liberated into the atmosphere globally, there will be a great market opportunity for ocean thermal, ammonia-producing plantships to help reduce those emissions.
Whether people are landlocked or not, energy is fungible, and ocean thermal can potentially provide
vast amounts of renewable energy globally, including much of the
developing world, while alleviating global warming. What is needed
right now is recognition and support of this technology in all
quarters, domestically and globally, toward rapidly surmounting the
market-entry hurdle and begin making ocean thermal plants and
plantships a commercial reality.
‘Blatantly liberal voice’
You guys have a cool
paper, however, politically you seem mercurial, one-sided, and
simplistic! I voted for Bush in ’04 but voted for Obama after one look
at social and academic abomination Palin. I think we should abolish all
parties so folks like you would quit sitting around like vultures
taking credit, saying and quoting “told you so.” You have become so
blinded by your desire to identify with your party that readers might
be led to believe that Obama is infallible! Was Bush lying? Yup. Lie or
not, the genocide deaths of 130,000 Kurds were enough to kick Saddam’s
ass! And as for the man you and I elected president, it’s one year
almost and still waiting on relief from a stagnant economy and a steady decline in Obama’s
approval rating … Get over everything already! Be honest with the man
in the mirror and rethink your motives before laying pen to paper! Or
change the statement at the top of front page to “Boulder County’s
blatantly liberal voice.”
Roy Dittman/via Internet
Say no to nuclear energy
October, Colorado papers announced that Sen. Mark Udall will be pushing
for more nuclear power plants to offset global warming. Udall sees mini
nuclear plants as an important part of the “national energy fix.” He is
all for storing nuclear waste in dry casks and hoping to find a
permanent dump (The Denver Post, Oct. 31).
He pointed to the
need to get expanded loan guarantees, tax credits and quick permitting
in order to facilitate the mini-nuke project. These tax breaks and loan
guarantees are paid for by U.S. citizens. The idea is to shift the cost
and risk from industry to taxpayers. The financial industry and
banksters aren’t interested in this risky business. The electric
utilities don’t seem all that interested in investing their money in
more nukes unless taxpayers pour $100 billion into covering their
taxpayers already are the insurance agents for every existing nuclear
power plant — all 104 of them. If one blows up, the citizens will have
to pay for all the losses greater than $10 billion. Ten billion is a
drop in the bucket if one of these “goes Chernobyl.” We will pay a cost
flood of hundreds of billions.
new Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) analysis, “Climate 2030: A
National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy,” finds that the United
States does not need to expand its reliance on nuclear power to make
dramatic cuts in power plant carbon emissions.
is estimated that “nuke-electric” will be the most expensive of the
“green” electric power fixes. Spending billions on nuclear electricity
steals money frommuch more promising projects. UCS points to quicker and more reliable ways to cut carbon from electricity generation.
proposes efficiency, renewables, wind, geothermal and electricity/heat
natural gas-powered plants to cut away at carbon discharges in
electricity generation. Solar will fit in the equation as well.
nuclear power resurgence that relies on new federal loan guarantees
would also risk repeating the costly rescues of the 1980s and 1990s.
These costs are born by ratepayers and taxpayers. Going the nuclear
route could push the federal government into “bailout mode” once again.
Bailouts seem to be the modern way for giant outfits that have gotten
into trouble over unwise investments and gambles.
the beginning, nuclear power was going to be too cheap to meter, but
rising expenses sent rates soaring and power companies howling for
In addition, there have been safety, nuclear security and waste disposal problems.
have been no new orders for nuclear power plants since 1978, and all
orders since 1973 have been cancelled. In 1985, Forbes magazine pointed
to the nuclear power experience as “the biggest managerial disaster in
business history.” Senators Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman
have joined forces in pushing for a nuclear title in the energy bill.
They called for jettisoning “cumbersome regulations” in favor of a
“streamlined permit system” to create new nuke plants. This sounds like
a position that Alfred E. Neuman might have taken with his “What me
power is dangerous, very dangerous, and wiping away regulations for
safe permitting is a recipe for disaster. Senators getting into a rush,
pushing for nuclear electricity, endangers all of us.
Nuclear power is risky, expensive and generates highly radioactive
waste with no final resting spot. Yet Sen. Udall and others are
proposing to squander billions in taxpayer dollars on this technology.
That money could be much better spent on energy efficiency and clean
renewable production methods. These green methods are quicker, easier,
cheaper and cleaner solutions to chopping our carbon discharges from
Boulder Weekly welcomes
your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and
should include your name, address and telephone number for
verification. Addresses will not be published. We do not publish
anonymous letters or those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the
property of Boulder Weekly and will be published on our website. Send
letters to: email@example.com.