Jim Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 "...Meanwhile, the administration is doing its best to impose its political will on the scientific community at home. According to The Washington Post, James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, accused a senior administration official of trying to block him from discussing the dangerous effects of global warning. And Bush's top science adviser, John Marburger, has warned researchers that they risk losing their federal funding if they publicly oppose administration policies. As the administration tries to force scientists to bend to its political will, the buildup of climate-changing gases continues, with the United States spewing an astonishing one third of the world's total. Scientists warn that Arctic sea ice is melting at an alarming rate and that it could be reduced by one-half as soon as the end of this century, causing severe disruptions that range from the extinction of animal and plant species to flooding in coastal regions across the globe. " http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/01/24/ed.edit.globalwarming.phn.0124.html Interesting article on Artic warming: http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/6075279p-5966322c.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Man, we need some sort of astonishing technological development to bail us out, like fusion, or it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Rising oil prices is definitely a positive thing, fostering such things as windmill farms and hybrid vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 I may be working on some projects in the Alaskan Artic, along the Bearing Sea where, because of the lack of pack ice, the shoreline is getting severely eroded and the feds are actually looking at using FEMA funds to MOVE a number of Native villages. Yikes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 "Man, we need some sort of astonishing technological development to bail us out." If only humanity could harness the power of Spray. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I'm not sure anyone will ever be able to harness the power of spray. Everybody's always talking about new fuel sources, but I don't know. Everything I read says that it's going to be a long time before it's realistic to expect something like a hydrogen economy. I have read some good things about carbon sequestration recently. In fact one interview I listened to made it sound like it was a lot more likely to be practical in a relatively short time period as opposed to fuel cells. Also the cost quoted didn't seem too outrageous ...20 cents a gallon added cost to gas. The main problem is you've got Bush and his friends on one side who are going to fight tooth and nail for the status quo and on the other side you have environmental groups who will try and undermine any solution that isn't a silver bullet. I've also read about rich liberals from Cape Cod (like the Kennedys) who are fighting hard to stop an ofshore wind farm. I guess they care about the environment as long as it doesn't effect their property value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 we should direct the streams of spray from this site at the streams of anti-spray from ascensionist.com and let them annihilate each other, thus creating a self-sustaining, limitless supply of .... well .... something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Rising oil prices is definitely a positive thing, fostering such things as windmill farms and hybrid vehicles. Rising oil prices is a very bad thing. People who have to commute with little option otherwise suffer because of it. Alternative energy sources are a good thing, and a cohesive, proactive energy policy that encourages and rewards R&D in this realm would be even better (including tax breaks and other forms of corporate welfare if that is what it takes). I am optimistic about hybrid cars. The ones out there seem to be decent with little negatives, and I see the technology as only getting better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 A rational policy towards nuclear power could go a long, long way towards reducing greenhouse emissions. Ironically enough, the same folks who are ringing the alarm bells the loudest about greenhouse emissions are the most adamantly opposed to nuclear power. Good luck powering the country with biomass and wind farms. Simple conservation could go a long way towards reducing power consumption around the world, but with respect to new technologies, I am hoping that within the next decade there'll be broad-spectrum LED's available for indoor lighting, the use of which could dramatically cut the demand for power across the globe. Just swapping out the lamps in street lights with LED's could make a small but significant difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 New in the paper yesterday It's going to cost Canada about $3 billion to implement Kyoto treaty and reduce our carbon emissions, or at least that is what the government plans to spend. News in the paper today. Bush to borrow another $80 billion to fund wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 A rational policy towards nuclear power could go a long, long way towards reducing greenhouse emissions. Ironically enough, the same folks who are ringing the alarm bells the loudest about greenhouse emissions are the most adamantly opposed to nuclear power. To add to the irony, the same people that continually harp on how we need to look to the "enlightened" industrialized nations of Europe (like France) for answers on how to live better, conveniently ignore from where these countries derive the majority of their energy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harkin_Banks Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 ...the same folks who are ringing the alarm bells the loudest about greenhouse emissions are the most adamantly opposed to nuclear power. ...the same people that continually harp on how we need to look to the "enlightened" industrialized nations of Europe (like France) for answers on how to live better, conveniently ignore from where these countries derive the majority of their energy... Some actual data would allow these total non-statements wallow out of the speculative mire. Or do you smell these trends in the air? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I love the smell of trends in the morning. It smells of.... FREEDOM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I am hoping that within the next decade there'll be broad-spectrum LED's available for indoor lighting, the use of which could dramatically cut the demand for power across the globe. Just swapping out the lamps in street lights with LED's could make a small but significant difference. I find that rather hard to believe. Low-pressure sodium vapor lamps are incredibly efficient. LED's certainly could produce a more pleasant spectrum of light, but I don't know that they'll beat the efficiency of LPSV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 ...the same folks who are ringing the alarm bells the loudest about greenhouse emissions are the most adamantly opposed to nuclear power. ...the same people that continually harp on how we need to look to the "enlightened" industrialized nations of Europe (like France) for answers on how to live better, conveniently ignore from where these countries derive the majority of their energy... Some actual data would allow these total non-statements wallow out of the speculative mire. Or do you smell these trends in the air? Check Greenpeace et al's positions on nuclear power. The stats on the percentage of power generated by nukes in Euroland and elsewhere are easy enough to obtain via a Google search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Rising oil prices is a very bad thing. People who have to commute with little option otherwise suffer because of it. As gas is not priced at it's societal impact, no it's not a bad thing. As gas prics rise people will make free market conservation choices. Ridiculously low fuel prices cause only inefficencies. A "rational" policy on nuclear energy would be good. A "rational" policy must also allow for the treatment and storage of nuclear waste - which currently have no provisions for. Part of the European solution is the use of a breeder reactor - we refuse to do that because of the possibility of terrorism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 According to The Washington Post, James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, accused a senior administration official of trying to block him from discussing the dangerous effects of global warning. And Bush's top science adviser, John Marburger, has warned researchers that they risk losing their federal funding if they publicly oppose administration policies. Regardless of how you feel on global warming, the allegation that the Administration is muzzling scientists is extremely disturbing. In order to make any sound policy you have to have good information about the non-fantasy world. Look what happened in Iraq. Policy driven by fantasy-world assumptions....leads to big pile of steaming shit. Making decisions with your head in the group-think sand is sooner or later going to end in catastrophe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The stats on the percentage of power generated by nukes in Euroland and elsewhere are easy enough to obtain via a Google search. Didn't bother to look up Europe, but for the US: - In 2003, 21% of the total electricity generated was from nuclear reactors - As of August 2004, the average age of the 103 operating reactors was 24 years - Most nuclear plants were designed for an operational life of 30 years. Beyond this, hugely expensive overhauls/upgrades are required for continued safe and efficent operation. Some major decisions will have to be made in the very near future as to how that 21% of capacity is going to be replaced or how demand can be reduced by an equivalent amount. Reference: DOE Website Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Rising oil prices is a very bad thing. People who have to commute with little option otherwise suffer because of it. As gas is not priced at it's societal impact, no it's not a bad thing. As gas prics rise people will make free market conservation choices. Ridiculously low fuel prices cause only inefficencies. A "rational" policy on nuclear energy would be good. A "rational" policy must also allow for the treatment and storage of nuclear waste - which currently have no provisions for. Part of the European solution is the use of a breeder reactor - we refuse to do that because of the possibility of terrorism This is definitely part of the problem. Last I heard the storage facility at Yucca Mountain was mothballed because the agency operating it could not guarantee that in 10,000 years the vitrified waste stored in steel barrells several thousand feet below the surface would not expose someone standing at the entrance to a dose of radiation equivalent to a chest x-ray. Anyone who has driven by Yucca mountain can attest to the probablity of this affecting any living organism other than kangaroo rats from now until the Earth is engulfed by the Sun.... The 10,000 year/chest ex-ray consideration sounds like urban folklore, and I'm sure someone can Google the appropriate resources to find out the actual status of the vitrification+Yucca Mountain plan for waste disposal - but I suspect that some equally dubious consideration has put the brakes on the plan. Meanwhile - the waste is much, much safer, more stable, and less likely to contaminate its surroundings in the tanks at Hanford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Global warming is caused by cow farts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hey if nuclear power is such a good thing why isn't Bush helping Iran with their reactor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I am hoping that within the next decade there'll be broad-spectrum LED's available for indoor lighting, the use of which could dramatically cut the demand for power across the globe. Just swapping out the lamps in street lights with LED's could make a small but significant difference. I find that rather hard to believe. Low-pressure sodium vapor lamps are incredibly efficient. LED's certainly could produce a more pleasant spectrum of light, but I don't know that they'll beat the efficiency of LPSV. Even if the implementation is restricted to homes where people have proven reluctant to adopt energy efficient lighting because the quality of the light is poor relative to incancescent bulbs, the impact would be significant. Technologies that reduce energy consumption without significantly diminishing anyone's quality of life - e.g. innovations focused on using current power sources more efficiently - will produce a much greater, and more immediate impact per dollar invested than anything focused on harnessing entirely new sources of energy. Hydrogen sounds great - but we're still going to need power to spit H20 - and I doubt that anything besides fossil fuels or nukes will be able to supply the power necessary to do so for a long, long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Hey if nuclear power is such a good thing why isn't Bush helping Iran with their reactor? They definitely need it for energy because they clearly have no other resources at their disposal to provide the power they need - so that's a very good question. How about more comparisons between the cost of the war and a country with the population and GDP of LA county complying with the Kyoto Accords? That was good stuff. How about a pertinent comparison of the amount that Equatorial Guinea spends on defense per capita versus the US..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 (edited) Hydrogen sounds great - but we're still going to need power to spit H20 - and I doubt that anything besides fossil fuels or nukes will be able to supply the power necessary to do so for a long, long time. If hydrogen is ever to become the answer for transportation, my guess it will be as part of a system that combines a reformer which converts something easily stored, like methanol, into hydrogen as needed to run fuel cells. Right now no one can make a fuel cell that is affordable, let alone the reformer. Where does the methanol come from? Probably natural gas, but it also could be made from any carbon source if hydrogen were available. Edited January 25, 2005 by catbirdseat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 That's population and GDP of California not LA county beeeeyotch! And 90% of North America's fresh water. Are you thirsty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 As gas is not priced at it's societal impact, no it's not a bad thing. As gas prics rise people will make free market conservation choices. Ridiculously low fuel prices cause only inefficencies. We have a long way to go before gas prices are "ridiculously low". I've seen local prices between $1.80 / gal up to over $2.00 / gal. I think a drop to an average of around $1.60 would have a reasonable impact on people's pocketbooks without causing exorbitant (over)usage ("inefficiencies"). I am *for* regularly raising cafe standards on fuel efficiency. Definitely a good thing, because it puts a pressure to innovate where it is needed. Adding tax breaks or other economic incentives is worthwhile as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.