wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Eric from B'klyn November 05, 2007 - 12:18PM

  Tim Flannery, who has been on Mr Lopate's show mentioned in an interview that they have found a super-heated rocks (geothermal) which he says could fuel the Australian industry for 100 years! at the same price as coal. He says that there are dozens of these sitea all around the world.

  
  
• [2] dc from nyc November 05, 2007 - 12:18PM

  I would pay more. But how does ethanol fuel or plug in hybrids help if the power to make the fuel and or the electricity still get fed by coal etc?

  
  
• [3] colter rule from NYC November 05, 2007 - 12:28PM

  These Apollo guys rock..If we'd followed Jimmy Carter vision to the future, we would all be where these guys would like to be in 20 years..ask them why we can't cool our fridges with the cold air outside our houses...or why we have to have water heaters that have to hold 75 gallons when you can get one that Instantly heats it...or why we need air conditioning compressors when the groundwater is 40 degrees 20 feet down???...Thanks...Colter

  
  
• [4] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey November 05, 2007 - 12:38PM

  Among other things, we need to look into meat substitutes. The cattle industry is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) carbon-producing industries. Much of this meat is going into lousy, fast food burgers. Can't we find (or create) a plant or mixture of plants that will produce something that tastes basically the same? If you want a great steak, you can still get that, but there's no need to be using real meat in something as tasteless as a McDonald's hamburger. Growing crops to feed to cattle that then feed people is unnecessarily expensive. It will save the fast food companies money, it will reduce the carbon footprint of the cattle industry, and the beef producers can go into making the faux meat which will be cheaper for them as well.

  
  
• [5] Geoff from New Jersey November 05, 2007 - 12:42PM

  We built a passive solar house in 1981, during the Carter presidency, There was some (10$) additional cost for the construction. We've more than made that up in the intervening years in energy savings. We estimate between 60 and 70% reduction in heating. The thermal stability of the house, as a result of the the basic design, minimizes the need for air conditioning and allows for "night cooling" the thermal mass which keeps the house cool during the day with little energy use during daytime hours.

  
  
• [6] Colette from west caldwell, nj November 05, 2007 - 12:44PM

  i'm currently getting ready to do renovations on my home and its very difficult to find the products necessary to do a green renovation, such as the solar roof shingles, geo thermal heating and cooling systems,etc. is there a resource out for the typical homeowener?

  
  
• [7] Geoff from New Jersey November 05, 2007 - 12:44PM

  The extra cost was anout 10%, not 10$ as seen on my original posting

  
  
• [8] B. Foster from NYC November 05, 2007 - 12:56PM

  Fact is we are already paying more, aren't we? If we had some sense of what the actual bill is for the gasoline we use, including all the pollution controls, the foreign policy issues, the military aid, the military mis-adventures, the jobs lost, the sales lost, the lives lost, etc, etc, I am certain most Americans would be willing to just pay the tab that avoids all of those things. Hell, I'd pay more just so that I wouldn't have to listen to the bull that passes for a debate on the issue.

  And then maybe we can get on to a discussion of issues like whether there are products out there that are important that there are no alternative raw materials for yet. So far all I hear is more efficient jet engines. Well, jet fuel seems to be something that will be extremely hard to replace with fry cooker oil, to use an example.

  Of course, part of the issue must necessarily be that all of the large oil corporations don't exactly see a clearly defined role for their bigness in an energy marketplace defined by a mulitplicity of smaller alternatives. Can they dictate the terms of that marketplace?

  
  
• [9] Joan Flynn from Rockaway Park NY November 05, 2007 - 01:54PM

  This is the kind of reporting that is desperately needed. I thank you for it. Congressman Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks’ voices need to be heard loudly and clearly. Jay Inslee and Bracken Hendricks mentioned that if we had “stayed the course” of President Carter’s energy policy we would have eliminated the need for Saudi oil. The question that Leonard should have asked - WHY DIDN”T PRESIDENT REAGAN DO THAT? WHY DIDN”T PRESIDENT G. H.W. BUSH DO THAT? Saving our environment, creating jobs and saving our lives should not be a partisan issue.

  President Bush signed an energy bill in 2005 that awarded the nuclear industry $13 billion in tax breaks, subsidies and loan guarantees – all paid by the public. Meanwhile, electric utilities comprise some of the wealthiest corporations in the world.

  The Senate version of the Energy Bill in Congress now could authorize virtually unlimited loan guarantees for backers of new nuclear reactors – effectively, a blank check, at taxpayer expense. Besides the fact that reactors are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, human error in operation, and earthquakes, there is also no solution to the problem of safely storing or transporting nuclear waste. The nuclear power industry has gone to Congress demanding loan guarantees for one basic reason: atomic reactors are not economically sound. Nobody will finance new ones without the taxpayer being forced to take the ultimate risk.

  
  
• [10] Jon P. from Hewitt, NJ November 05, 2007 - 03:11PM

  You cant pay more for anything...

  It’s easy to say you can pay more if you’re well off. But the overwhelming majority of Americans are not well off. The ultimate solution can not be subsidized and it has to be cheaper then what’s out there now. Hybrid cars that are several thousand dollars more then same gas powered version might be great for people who can afford them so they can feel better about themselves. But a car that gets 60 miles to the gallon like a diesel powered car that cost as much as its gasoline powered equal is a far more realistic solution for the average American.

  
  
• [11] Eric from B'klyn November 06, 2007 - 07:34AM

  I would pay more. But when I checked it out w ConEd, 1. they do charge more for 'green' energy which I expected, 2. they charge a very high premium for 'delivery'. So I did not do it. Bloomberg ought to call them out on this.