| Bloomberg Calls for New York to Go Renewable |
| Written by Jaymi Heimbuch | ||
| Friday, 22 August 2008 | ||
Typically, as California goes, so goes the nation. But the same often holds true with New York. Here is one news item rapidly making the rounds on the clean tech sites that I hope will demonstrate New York’s influence. On Tuesday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced at a clean energy summit in Las Vegas that he wants New York to make a major shift into renewable energy, and urged businesses to submit proposals by September 19th. No holds barred on the sources of energy – he wants to float everything from urban turbines, skyscraper solar panels, tidal energy, geothermal energy and….ahem, nuclear. I wish we could pretend he didn’t say that last one, but yes, he wants “clean nuclear” power. New Yorkers are already among the greenest people in the nation, based mainly on the tight set-up of the city. But millions and millions of people require a whole lot of power. While Bloomberg wants the current usage levels to stay the same even as the city grows, he pointed out that the infrastructure, and power sources, are out of date and strained. So, he wants to see energy being drawn from the Hudson and East rivers, from the Atlantic ocean, from the skyscrapers in terms of wind and solar, and any other place possible. New York is already taking some great steps to green up, from the new WTC towers, to its participation in the Carbon Disclosure Project, to their pilot East River power generation project. It seems like there are hundreds of ideas discussed on EcoGeek alone that could be streaming in to his office as we speak. I’m looking forward to finding out if some of the renewable energy ideas he called for will actually be considered and adopted in the near future. Via Physorg; photo via aturkus
Comments
(7)
...
written by Andrew Leinonen , August 22, 2008
Pro-Nuclear
written by Aragorn , August 22, 2008
Please don't assume all of us are anti-nuclear... I beleieve it is the greenest energy choice we have available in a scale that could really make a diffference
Nuclear, meh, but Progress Yes.
written by Geoff Livingston , August 22, 2008
I am pleased to see this kind of thinking and progress. We need more innovation from our political leaders. It's the Schwarzeneggers, the Bloombergs of the world that will force the federal government's hand.
...
written by Stefan Hayden , August 22, 2008
Here is a great interview with Stewart Brand where he talk about green energy and nuclear power.
While nuclear power produces waste our ability to reprocess the waste and use it again will only get better. So we will not need to store the waste for thousands of years and only on the hundred year time frame until we can reuse it. nuclear is a great stepping stone to oil independence.
...
written by Goink , August 22, 2008
New York needs waste to energy conversion. Also offshore wind production should be part of the Pickens plan.
...
written by dialtone , August 22, 2008
take all waste streams - all garbage (except metals) all sewage solids & by the "Anything Into Oil" process you have diesel fuel, minerals, methane & water vapor - no more landfills - no more treated sewage ending up in the rivers & oceans also pebble bed nuclear reactors - see Wired mag 09-04-04 also vertical axis wind turbines on the tops of all buildings
...
written by Nalamo , September 06, 2008
I think a lot of attention needs to focus on developing and implementing energy consumption curriculum for NYC public schools. We need to prepare the next generation to change the way they think about energy, not just have alternative sources for energy gluttonous habits.
|
||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Science, technology gadgets and...baby seals. We're in a bit of an eco-mess, but we've got the brains to lick any problem. And that's why EcoGeek.org publishes up to ten stories daily about innovations that are saving the planet.
And if that sounds interesting to you, then congratulations, you're an EcoGeek.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
I obviously would prefer renewables (and I think we've already reached the threshold where the 10-year lead time of nuclear plants makes them essentially obsolete), but I'm not opposed to nuclear.
Radiation is feared because people don't understand it...the radiation levels at the perimeter of a nuke plant are not significantly above background levels. Ramsar, Iran has a background dose 100 times higher than average, and people born there don't glow. Most of the artificial (human produced) radiation comes from coal-burning plants, so displacing that with nuclear is a good call in my mind. You also get plenty of cosmic radiation on high-flying transcontinental flights, or every time you have an X-ray.