Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Plutonium from Fukushima is a global catastrophe. [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)224. For the cost of Iraq War, we could've built National 100% Renewable Clean Energy Grid.
Details:
For the Price of the Iraq War, The U.S. Could Have a 100% Renewable Power System
By Washington's Blog
Global Research, April 11, 2013
What Are We Choosing for Our Future?
Wind energy expert Paul Gipe reported this week that for the amount spent on the Iraq war the U.S. could be generating 40%-60% of its electricity with renewable energy:
Disregarding the human cost, and disregarding our other war in Afghanistan, how much renewable energy could we have built with the money we spent? How far along the road toward the renewable energy transition could we have traveled?
The answer: shockingly far.
Cost of the Iraq War
The war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion through fiscal year 2013, according to Brown Universitys Watson Institute for International Studies. Thats trillion, with a t. Including future costs for veterans care, and so on, raises the cost to $2.2 trillion.
SNIP...
If we had invested the $2.2 trillion in wind and solar, the US would be generating 21% of its electricity with renewable energy. If we had invested the $3.9 trillion that the war in Iraq will ultimately cost, we would generate nearly 40% of our electricity with new renewables. Combined with the 10% of supply from existing hydroelectricity, the US could have surpassed 50% of total renewables in supply.
However, this is a conservative estimate. If we include the reasonable assumptions suggested by Robert Freehling, the contribution by renewables would be even greater.
Freehlings assumptions raise to as much as 60% the nations lost potential contribution by new renewables to US electricity supply by going to war in Iraq. With the addition of existing hydroelectric generation, the opportunity to develop as much as 70% of our nations electricity with renewable energy was lost.
And unlike the war in Iraq, which is an expense, the development of renewable energy instead of war would have been an investment in infrastructure at home that would have paid dividends to American citizens for decades to come.
CONTINUED...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/for-the-price-of-the-iraq-war-the-u-s-could-have-a-100-renewable-power-system/5330881
That's just one thing GlobalResearch.ca brought to my attention. Readers are leaders, you know.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
226 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Thanks, Cleita. That's why I posted. Few who know are talking about Fukushima in public.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#3
Maybe when people start discovering they have polluted a whole food supply chain, they will
Cleita
Jan 2014
#6
Stephanie Miller isn't all that smart. She means well, but she's not one to go to for info.
cui bono
Jan 2014
#97
1 Millionth of One Gram of Inhaled Plutonium Will Give You Cancer -- Helen Caldicott, MD
Octafish
Jan 2014
#9
our granddaughter wanted to spend this summer in Japan... that was nixed in a heartbeat
secondwind
Jan 2014
#11
You first, (in the hug your plutonium for real department with no shielding)
nadinbrzezinski
Jan 2014
#35
Something like 80% of the mass of the core of the reactor at Chernobyl
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2014
#131
They must not like the smell of plutonium and stapelia gigantea. Sucks the breath right out of them
lonestarnot
Jan 2014
#147
EDIT: Original line here contained statistics I pulled out of my ass. It was wrong, and I apologize.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#33
That is the stupidest thing I've read all day! Just how the fuck can you say that? You have
ChisolmTrailDem
Jan 2014
#44
"Octafish, is there anyone who disagrees with you that isn't a COINTELPRO operative? "...
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#61
If you want honest discussion, don't attribute to me what I didn't write then.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#62
For the record, I enjoyed the DU Mail back and forth just a few minutes ago.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#76
Again, at levels far, far below levels that would cause even minor health risks.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#91
Except that study indicated the plutonium, americium, and uranium levels corroborated with pre-2000
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#144
As a child in the 1950s, I got lots of propaganda about the "promise of the peaceful atom."
LongTomH
Jan 2014
#78
It's a disaster on a planetary scale and yet Corporate Media pretend it isn't.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#94
I try not to dwell on this because, frankly, there's Jack Shit that I can do about it.
Electric Monk
Jan 2014
#99
I feel that way too, Electric Monk. Problem is, TEPCO also feels that way, too.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#107
Here's a report on plutonium from Fukushima: only detectable very close to the reactor
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#103
How Dangerous Is 400-6000 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima?
Octafish
Jan 2014
#148
What does Helen Caldicott's position on transparency have to do with the validity of her claims?
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#151
No. Caldicott made a mistake, based on what was then known. A lot different than what you call her.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#159
No, she took a study that fit her preconceptions despite its numerous known flaws
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#161
Release of plutonium isotopes from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident
SidDithers
Jan 2014
#163
It may have to do with clouding the central issue: Fukushima is a global catastrophe.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#171
You continually claim the plutonium from Fukushima is a 'global catastrophe' without any evidence
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#173
I gave you science from sources independent of TEPCO, or governments, in #103
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2014
#176
Great. And I gave you sources in #105 that showed where it was found 25 miles away from FNPP.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#177
Right. But it's plutonium and found 25 times further from the plant than you reported in #103.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#181
I'd rather people get the facts and use them to set policy. The phrase is democracy.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#184
For the cost of Iraq War, we could've built National 100% Renewable Clean Energy Grid.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#224
Don't worry. The situation may even be worse than what's posted on this thread.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#188
Unfortunately, the facts say otherwise: Plutonium from Fukushima is a global catastrophe.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#185
I read the article where the scientist from NMSU said they detected plutonium on March 14, 2011.
Octafish
Jan 2014
#207
There's a big difference between depleted uranium and the nearly-undetectable cesium in tuna.
NuclearDem
Jan 2014
#216
An Admirable Ability. Here's what Physicians for Social Responsibility said back in March, 2011...
Octafish
Jan 2014
#223
Did they ask: 'What if the Fukushima nuclear fallout crisis had happened here?'
Octafish
Jan 2014
#221