The real problem is that we should have started renewable energy a long time ago.

The problem is that we did not make a plan to overcome the problems that are caused by large-scale use of fossil and radioactive fuels. We should have invested in large-scale renewable energy projects a long time ago.

The argument that is made to continue with our current nuclear program goes something like this. Nuclear energy currently supplies the United States with 20% of its electrical energy. They say that renewable energy like solar, wind, and hydroelectric farms aren’t up to speed to cover that 20%. So, if we got rid of nuclear power plants, then coal, gas, and oil plants would have to increase their supplies to cover the 20%, which would create more sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxide and everyone knows that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is bad news.

So, why didn’t we build adequate renewable energy projects way back when before the first nuclear power plant was built fifty years ago? Why did the government choose to subsidize for nuclear programs over renewable energy? Why is more than $100 billion per year provided in government benefits for coal, oil, natural gas and radioactive fuels but there isn’t enough money for making America energy independent with renewable energy? Why do political candidates and business leaders advocate policies for increased dependence upon annually burning fossil coal, oil, and natural gas that required more than a million years to accumulate? Follow the money to answer these questions.

For that 20% of energy that the nuclear power plants provide us, we now get to store the nuclear waste, which will cost us more by far than that 20% of energy that we received. What will happen to the 132 million pounds of radioactive waste that is currently being stored in temporary facilities among 121 sites across thirty-nine states? Nobody wants to permentally store nuclear waste in his or her state, especially not Nevada, where it was designed to go. The government has already spent $10 billion dollars in developmental costs to make Yucca Mountain in Nevada the home to this waste … waste that is growing by 2,000 metric tons per year. And here is another problem … even if Yucca Mountain accepted the waste, by the year 2012; there won’t be any more room to accept more nuclear waste.

It’s not too late to get renewable energy up to speed. In fact, we have to make it work. See, the American people don’t want to build any more nuclear power plants, which is a good thing. But, our current nuclear power plants are becoming old and we certainly don’t want to renew their licenses and allow them to operate beyond their intended life expectancy. Nor do we want to increase our dependence on fossil fuels. Everyday our energy needs expand. We should have developed renewable energy a long time ago. We cannot wait any longer. I urge you to learn about the Solar Hydrogen Economy.

Coal burning by power plants is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases. During the last 100 years “killer fog” and “smog deaths” have been documented in Asian, European, and North American cities from coal burning. Mercury and other heavy metal poisoning of fisheries and other food supplies now causes pregnant mothers to avoid tuna and other predatory fish high enough in the food chain to receive more concentrated doses of what their prey accumulates.

Do you want to hear something really silly? Several nuclear companies have sued the federal government. They want to be paid for the cost of storing their own waste. Millions of dollars have already been rewarded in settlement fees. And over the next decade, it’s expected that more nuclear companies are going to sue the federal government for hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you know who pays for that? You do. I do. Our kids will. We have already paid for Yucca Mountain, which isn’t being used and now you are paying again. It is particularly exasperating to notice how nuclear-power advocates somehow fail to report that a new nuclear power plant requires enormous amounts of coal, oil, and natural gas to mine, calcine, refine, transport, construct, and operate nuclear power plants.

Nuclear and coal power plants transfer wealth from middleclass electricity users to power plant owners but cause the middleclass large untold ongoing costs due to health problems and climate changes along with inflation due to the depletion of finite resources. We should have advanced large-scale renewable energy plants a long time ago to produce electricity and/or hydrogen without pollution or such economic inflation.

Here is some good news: Arizona could be creating far more wealth than Saudi Arabia by harnessing abundant solar energy. A relatively small portion of Arizona between Phoenix, Yuma, and Tucson could be supplying more electricity and hydrogen than all the fossil and nuclear energy now used in Mexico, USA, and Canada but the government advocates increased dependence upon coal and nuclear power plants. Similar renewable solar and/or wind energy opportunities exist in Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, California, Alaska, and the plains of North America so why are we building more coal and nuclear power plants?

We are about to pay again for more nuclear power plants as Congress assures the American people that they are concerned about global warming and dwindling natural gas supplies and for those reasons they want to build 34 new nuclear reactors at 23 sites. But, there's no money for large-scale renewable energy.


Why do you think we haven't switch to renewable energy? Or said another way, why aren't we doing renewable energy on a much larger scale?
Here is a video from the Sierra Club about coal. You have got to watch this one! It is so awesome ...

Go to www.CoalIsNotTheAnswer.org to learn the truth.