India is on the rise in the green energy domain. The country increased its total capacity from 2% in 2003 to 10% by 2010. The market for renewable energy and related technologies and businesses is growing by 25% per year, according to a U.S. Commerce Department report.
Fukushima Nuclear power plant compound has been affected devastatingly by the Japanese earthquake. Latest updates report most problems with Reactors 2 and 3. Radiation at Fukushima Nuclear power plant I, Reactor 3 is the highest. If you are concerned you can find regular and accurate updates and info
renewable energy sources at this time can not fully replace the need for base energy providers such as nuclear, gas and thermal power plants, however if utilized correctly they could lower the negative impact of fossil fuels and with enhanced research and development efforts renewable energy sources could possibly lower the need for fossil based power production in the near future.
First of all let us assure you that according to Tokyo Electric Power Company is still a level four local accident. The dose equivalent on the edge of compound of Fukushima power plant is still about 10-times lower than the dangerous amount but long-term exposure is not advised! If you are concerned about radiation from said power plant you can read more about it here. Right now the highest levels of risk are at the reactors 3 and 2 of Fukushima Nuclear plant I.
As we empathize with all who are unfortunate enough to be in the midst of this horrible event, we should try and learn as much as we can from it. Taking into account how dangerous radiation can be, we generally do not know enough about it. What we do know however, is the fact that we do not use our natural resources efficiently enough. Renewable energy sources at this time can not fully replace the need for base energy providers such as nuclear, gas and thermal power plants, however if utilized correctly they could lower the negative impact of fossil fuels and with enhanced research and development efforts renewable energy sources could possibly lower the need for fossil based power production in the near future. Despite the recent developments at Fukushima one has to be aware of the fact that nuclear power plants are actually very safe and that if Fukushima had been a coal power plant, the devastation to nature and people at this point would have been far worse.
So, our condolences to all affected, and we hope we’ve given you , our readers, useful information.
A reader suggests that we should have a post about the current Fukushima nuclear power plant situation, calling for me to bring this whole thing into perspective.
I reply…
Thanks so much for the note. I deeply appreciate the trust and respect you have placed in me. But the truth is that I don’t have any greater insight into the extent and ramifications of this disaster than anyone else, and thus I feel that I have no value to add here.
Of course, I could point out that the millions of people (of whom I’m only one) who have been warning the world about the dangers of nuclear power were right — as if that makes anyone feel better. It goes without saying that I’m not into that. In the last few days, I’ve had people from all over the world emailing me about this, a few of them obviously in tears as they wrote. The world is in a state of shock and mourning, as well it should be.
I’m reminded of the BP oil spill, where some of my friends simply couldn’t understand why I wasn’t “capitalizing” on it. In truth, there’s nothing to capitalize on. It’s a disaster, period, and I think that more or less everyone understands this.
Like Chernobyl, the radius of the circle we draw around Fukushima will be hotly debated. And like the BP oil spill, industry spokespeople will attempt to minimize their culpability and the damage to the credibility of the nuclear program as a whole.
But, to the point: Does the disaster bring us all closer to an understanding of the imperative to migrate to clean energy? I hope so. Can I explicate it any further or better than what you’re seeing and reading? No, sorry.
In the last year, we’ve had the BP situation, the $8.6 billion judgement against Chevron in Ecuador, the bloodshed in Northern Africa in reaction to the exploitation that was enabled by oil money, and now, the nuclear catastrophe in Japan. If this succession of events fails to make the case for renewable energy, I hate to imagine what will.
Again, I appreciate your trust and friendship. But, outside of offering my most sincere sympathies, I’m out of words. I’m afraid the facts speak for themselves.
Out for a jog Sunday morning, I chanced by The Book Loft in Solvang, the quaint Danish settlement that neighbors Santa Ynez, where I make my home. A thought dawned on me: Do they feature books by local authors? Turns out they do indeed.
Ka-ching! I just sold three books. Profit: $9.78, less the cost of carting them over there, of course.
If you’ll be in Southern California next Tuesday, March 22, and want to check out an interesting event, its sponsors, our friends at OnGreen.com, are giving away tickets to the first 10 of our readers who register here. The event, “Powering Cleantech Innovation Worldwide,” has a good-looking roster of speakers and panels. I’ll be there, if you want to say hello.
..continued from an earlier article
Manufacturing has been on the decline for decades. Manufacturing jobs have shrunk 21% between 1998 and 2007. This has left workers in need of jobs and states in need of new industries. As a case in point, Michigan has lost auto manufacturing jobs and had the highest unemployment rate in the U.S. by March 2009. The Governor is focusing on the clean energy economy as a major part of planned recovery, planning to create clean energy jobs for its reisdents in the “No Worker Left Behind“ program. (more…)
Every time I hear intelligent people refute the idea of global warming based on the power of Mother Nature I really can’t believe my ears.
Last week, I spoke with three people who appeared bright enough, all of whom told me that humans simply don’t have the power to screw up a force as powerful as nature. As proof, one of these guys, on a live radio interview in front of 70,000 listeners, said, “Hey, the temperature of the planet was changing long before the Industrial Revolution.” Another pointed out that the BP oil spill was overhyped, because microbes instantly began eating the oil. In agreement, the third fellow pointed to the video footage of the Japanese tsunami – testimony to the awesome force of the natural world.
Sure nature is awesome. And just as sure, it doesn’t need people; if it had conscious awareness, I’m sure it would be thrilled to see us erased from the face of the globe. But I’m at a loss to understand how, regardless of its power, that anyone could think it’s impervious to damage from mankind’s ceaseless pumping out toxins, deforestation, strip-mining, fracking, ocean dumping, changing the make-up of our atmosphere, and so forth. Is it really hard to believe that our practices are making it tough for Mother Nature to support life here?
I was the guest on a really good hour-long radio interview this afternoon on KMMS-AM, a popular talk/news station in Bozeman, MT. Host Larry Stancil and I didn’t agree on everything (in fact, we agreed on very little) but we got along fine, and I think everyone learned a great deal. We only had one caller, and he was extremely civil.
To be honest, I was surprised; I was braced for a brouhaha, as I had been told that some of those folks don’t like environmentalists telling them they can’t shoot wolves, etc. But cooler heads prevailed. I’ll post a link to the show when I receive it.
Elizabeth Eckhardt writes:
If our goal is to decrease our energy demand through increasing efficiencies throughout all aspects of our lives, there is an obvious, simple, safe, sane, and humane way to do this: stop eating animals. Animal agriculture in the United States consumes 1/3 of our fossil fuels produced, and contributes more to global greenhouse gas emissions than all the world’s cars and SUV’s combined.
She continues in a very well written and compelling comment to my piece about the renewable energy’s tough realities — here.
Though I’m not a vegetarian, I try to eat as low on the food chain as possible (I go through a heck of a lot of fish) – and for the precise reasons you name. It’s better for me, better for the planet, and better for the cow.
Having said that, it’s not a sacrifice for me, because I really like fish. My point here is that few people make sacrifices for the good of the planet alone.
I was listening to a radio show recently in which I was reminded that Paul McCartney (a vegan) makes it easy for people to modify their eating habits. He asks them to experiment with giving up meat one day a week. “How about meatless Monday?” he might ask. I find this interesting, because you’ll travel a long way to find someone who knows more about connecting to people than McCartney.
