Good points about nuclear power, NewOldSalt. I think it would be interesting to know the answer to this question: Given that all humans receive a fairly high ongoing dose of naturally-occurring radiation from both earthly and cosmic sources, it would be interesting to know what proportion of radiation received by Americans is due to nuclear power generation, and how that proportion would change if we had a considerable increase in nuclear energy production. How about compared to radiation from radon for a family living in a home whose radon levels are just below the government limit for radon remediation? I imagine that the answer would be "small" in each case, but it would be informative to have that information to put things in perspective. Of course there is the possibility of disasters and the reality of occupation exposures that would affect some people, and these are important to consider.

I would guess that actual heat generated by nuclear power generation, or any other human activity, does not really contribute to global warming, although it does affect the local environment. Much more important for global warming are alterations to the atmosphere's heat collecting/retention properties.

Significant energy and money go in to "hiding" or burying nuclear waste. An energy expense that's non-existent with some other forms of energy gathering/production.

And who says, put your nuclear waste disposal site in my county, let alone state.

I think people who say nuclear power is zero emissions are nearly right out of 1984.

I am aware of the fact we are exposed to background radiation daily, and from "natural" sources. However, those are much less troubling than when humans decided to concentrate it thousands, millions, billions of times over.

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing "green" about nuclear energy is the dollar signs some folks see in it, for themselves.

it would be interesting to know what proportion of radiation received by Americans is due to nuclear power generation

Be careful of accepting the "best case scenario" statistics as though they were the "worse case scenario" statistics, which is what the shills want you to hear and confuse. They love to tout the ideal.

It's almost like standing on a levee and saying, "Yup, these levees will hold, as long as the water doesn't reach within the top 3 feet of them. But we haven't seen that in a while, so we probably never will. Instead lets go blow a few billion dollars on Mars looking for vapor." :-)

Please let me, again, reiterate my HUGE desire to see an energy source/store that fits in the home, that fits in a community. NOT some MEGA MONSTROSITY like it seems only the well-funded care about.

I have a feeling the solution is going to involve some sort of human waste (i.e. poop) reclamation, fermentation, etc... As far as I'm concerned, this only makes sense.

As far as I'm concerned it makes NO SENSE to spend lots of energy gathering radioactive material, spending energy to process it to concentrate it, using it up, then spending a lot of energy trying to get rid of it.

It makes TOTAL SENSE to make use of a "resource" we already produce in huge quantities, stuff that does contribute (we're told) to global warming, stuff that we already want to "get rid of".

The only "downside" is this solution would be like real life, distributed, not in the hands of a few, so therefore it's likely to be poo-pooed (excuse the pun) by the MEGA MONOPOLIES that control 250% of the country, and only want to create solutions that put 400% power and control in their hands. I.e. the mega farms, mega generating stations, mega meat packing factories, mega telcos, etc...

And I think George Orwell would not be surprised one bit at their "logic".

your quote - "I think people who say nuclear power is zero emissions are nearly right out of 1984."

I would advise to be careful not to identify some folks on the extreme that can be villianized as a way of attacking nuclear power generation. if these folks would have said "drastically lower carbon emissions per unit of energy produced" then this would likely not be an issue.

my quote - "it would be interesting to know what proportion of radiation received by Americans is due to nuclear power generation"
your response - "Be careful of accepting the "best case scenario" statistics as though they were the "worse case scenario" statistics, which is what the shills want you to hear and confuse. They love to tout the ideal..."

This is what I thought was the most important point of my reply, your points being accepted. I'm not talking about best- or worse-case scenarios, rather than a hard, knowable quantity in the present after decades of nuclear power generation and some accidents. I agree that it is dangerous to concentrate radioactivity - but where are we at present in america compared to background radiation? I think the answer would be important to know, and I haven't heard anyone publicizing these statistics.

your quote - "As far as I'm concerned it makes NO SENSE to spend lots of energy gathering radioactive material, spending energy to process it to concentrate it, using it up, then spending a lot of energy trying to get rid of it."

I don't want to be in the position of defending nuclear energy, which I would say I have a balanced view of, but it is worth noting that we currently spend lots of energy acquiring fossil fuels, we use them up, and then spend at least some energy (smokestack scrubbers, global warming legislation), some would say not nearly enough, dealing with their consequences. Perhaps this is similarly senseless, and this may be true in part of many energy-producing options.

your quote - "I have a feeling the solution is going to involve some sort of human waste (i.e. poop) reclamation, fermentation, etc... As far as I'm concerned, this only makes sense."

I wonder how the potential energy contained in an average home's poop production compares to its energy consumption from all sources. I bet it would be small, but it would be fun to know.

Instead of This

I still cringe reading the question I wrote, "Please tell me which emits, or creates, the most amount of toxic materials."

Least Amount Please

I really wanted to write, "Please tell me which emits, or creates, the LEAST amount of toxic materials" but I knew I would write it later. So here it is. :-)

It really deserves its own essay, so someday...

I would caution against thinking of manure and other agricultural products as "waste." In Sir Albert Howard's book "An agricultural Testament" from the 1940's, he describes the consequences on Indian villages of collecting cowchips from surrounding fields to burn as fuel in their stoves. The fields were deprived of the return of this agricultural product to their soils and the fertility of the soils became depleted, leading to a reduced capacity for food production and problems for the village. Similarly, I believe we should be cautious today about asking our soils to produce both our food and our energy. There are examples of harvesting energy from the process of decomposition without harming soil fertility. For example, old farmhouses shared a main wall between human and animal sleeping quarters, thereby harvesting heat from the decomposing layers of animal bedding and dung that accumulated against the house wall. I think Howard may have visited this subject in his book. He certainly spoke of composting human waste. However, without a big change in the way we view human labor, comfort, and living standards, I don't think large scale harvesting of energy from agricultural products in wise, ecologically sound ways is tenable. I do think that solar, wind, and nuclear make sense. You raise good points about nuclear, but I think we should incorporate this into the mix of future energy sources.

Sir Howard's book can be seen here: http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/ATtoc.html

More good news. Good for our atmosphere (methane is supposedly a more potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2), and good for us moving away from harmful forms of energy.

It seems a Massachusetts company is helping San Antonio, Texas, collect methane from their waste treatment plants.

CNN Search via Google for "San Antonio" and "biosolids"
http://search.cnn.com/search.jsp?query=san%20antonio%20biosolids&type=we...

Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=san+antonio+biosolids&btnG=Google+S...

Dr. Helen Caldicott, in "Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer" clearly shows that Nuclear Power is not a "zero emissions" industry, not even counting the radiation. There is a long production cycle with heavy CO2 footprints and Coal for processing is one of the aspects as is oil for long-distance transportation. "A hell of a way to boil water." ~Albert Einstein

Furthermore, if we were to generate all of the world's electricity by Nuclear Power (& the coal/oil required on the side) we would run out of Uranium within NINE YEARS.
The numbers I heard about radiation are that it will take half a million years for the "half-life" cycle to complete itself such that this last approximately half a century of nuclear wastes are no longer "emitting" nasty waves.

In addition to that, Nuclear Power is so inefficient that it cannot come anywhere near to paying for itself so it is a publicly subsidized industry, even without the inevitable corruption in high places. OK, Nuclear Power PERHAPS to go into space, but it belongs on our Sun, not on earth in our faces.

As for the rest, well you know ... "defecation occurs" .. as a friend of mine likes to put it, so it seems like common sense to make beneficial use of it however we can.