Friday, April 20, 2007

Crow Learning Same Old Anti-Nuke Talking Points

After traveling around the nation with "global warming activist" Laurie David, singer Sheryl Crow claims she's been "learning" about nuclear energy:

[W]e've been getting lots of questions about nuclear. I know that nuclear is better than fossil fuels when it comes to carbon dioxide, but nuclear energy is by no means clean. We don't know what to do with the waste we already have and it seems like a bad idea to me to make more when we have so many cleaner options such as wind and solar.
I think it's safe to say Crow probably didn't bother talking to Bill Maher too closely after he had the temerity to disagree with her on his show last Friday night.

In any case, we call nuclear, "clean air energy" for more reasons than just carbon dioxide. Click here for our section of the Web dealing with nuclear energy's environmental benefits.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only trouble is, we don't have the "options" of wind and solar in any realistic sense for meeting the majority of projected need. Those are intermittant energy sources with capacity factors in the range of 25%, availability not much better in most places, and in some places a lot worse. The maximum potential I've seen for all of these "options" combined is something like 20% of the projected demand. So where do we go for the other 80%, even if by some unlikely happenstance we were to fully develop the potential of "renewables"? Seems like we're spending a lot of effort developing and talking about things that are meeting something like 1% of our needs now, and have at most the potential to meet a fifth of our requirements. Meanwhile the elephant in the living room, the other 80% of the demand, remains to be addressed.

Anonymous said...

Why would we need a rock star to tell us about energy?

From what I can discern, rock stars are not especially qualified to speak about dentistry, bridge building, oceanography, or even the chemistry of gemstones.

Of course, if one is a rock star, one could in theory learn about energy.

I would guess that the lights and amplifiers at most of Crow's concerts are powered by coal, except of course, when she plays Paris.

Sting, who devoted a whole song to some dribble about carbon 14 (and the tune was catchy), made of film that was, well, all about Sting and Sting playing Paris. For about one month Sting paid to have Sting filmed renting a chateau where Sting consumed oodles and oodles of power conspicuously, all the time posturing about how Sting was the most Sting like concerned person about the world's environmental issues as enunciated by Sting.

So what?

-NNadir

Anonymous said...

Fact is, show biz people use hundreds, if not thousands of tons more carbon than the rest of us. Making movies, doing concerts, all of these consume vastly more energy than the rest of us use in our ordinary jobs. Flying around in private jets, tooling from concert to concert in limos or buses (and no, I'm not impressed with the "biodiesel bus"), leaves a carbon footprint that exceeds what many of us leave in a lifetime. But, that's okay, they're rock stars, they're "concerned" about the environment. That gives them leave to abuse it while lecturing the rest of us on what we should or shouldn't advocate.