Monday, May 14, 2007
Specious Arguments Used by Opponents of Nuclear Energy
Specious Arguments Used by Opponents of Nuclear Energy
The author speaks about the pseduo-scientific arguments used by some of those opposed to nuclear energy. According to these anti-nuclear advocates, "Nuclear fission is apparently bad because splitting atoms is in conflict with all Life because it is destruction not construction".
Of course this is all utter trash; if someone is opposed to nuclear energy (or for that matter opposed to anything), he or she should be able to put forward objective and pertinent arguments. In the case of nuclear energy, both in public forums and sometimes even in scientific forums, what we hear are random thoughts from folks who are scared of the unknown.
As the author says in the post, what is wrong with splitting? "Natural radioactive decay, the kind of decay, which fuelled the primordial vents from where life first sprang, is the destruction of atoms. Metabolism is the destruction of all sorts of molecules."
Fair enough...
Read the rest of the post from here @ Freedom for Fission
The author speaks about the pseduo-scientific arguments used by some of those opposed to nuclear energy. According to these anti-nuclear advocates, "Nuclear fission is apparently bad because splitting atoms is in conflict with all Life because it is destruction not construction".
Of course this is all utter trash; if someone is opposed to nuclear energy (or for that matter opposed to anything), he or she should be able to put forward objective and pertinent arguments. In the case of nuclear energy, both in public forums and sometimes even in scientific forums, what we hear are random thoughts from folks who are scared of the unknown.
As the author says in the post, what is wrong with splitting? "Natural radioactive decay, the kind of decay, which fuelled the primordial vents from where life first sprang, is the destruction of atoms. Metabolism is the destruction of all sorts of molecules."
Fair enough...
Read the rest of the post from here @ Freedom for Fission
PermaLink - Specious Arguments Used by Opponents of Nuclear Energy posted by Ecacofonix : 4:49 AM
0 Comments
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Does A Green Tax for ‘Binge’ Flyers Make Sense?
A Green Tax for ‘Binge’ Flyers
May 9th, 2007 post @ Eco Chick
Recently, the publisher of a guidebook series - of all books - said people fly too much! Reason? Mark Ellingham, the founder of the Rough Guides, railed in an interview recently against the travel development he refers to as “binge flying” – hopping a flight for a quick weekend in a distant locale. To counter this trend, he calls for a £100 (~ $ 210) green tax on all flights from Britain to Europe and Africa and a £250 (~ $520) green tax to flights elsewhere.
Does this make sense - rational and emotional? The author feels while emotionally this might not be acceptable ("oops, the price just doubled between Germany & USA!"), from an economic and rational standpoint, it could make the environment a lot cleaner.
Read more from this interesting post @ Eco Chick
May 9th, 2007 post @ Eco Chick
Recently, the publisher of a guidebook series - of all books - said people fly too much! Reason? Mark Ellingham, the founder of the Rough Guides, railed in an interview recently against the travel development he refers to as “binge flying” – hopping a flight for a quick weekend in a distant locale. To counter this trend, he calls for a £100 (~ $ 210) green tax on all flights from Britain to Europe and Africa and a £250 (~ $520) green tax to flights elsewhere.
Does this make sense - rational and emotional? The author feels while emotionally this might not be acceptable ("oops, the price just doubled between Germany & USA!"), from an economic and rational standpoint, it could make the environment a lot cleaner.
Read more from this interesting post @ Eco Chick
Labels: environment, opinions, transportation
PermaLink - Does A Green Tax for ‘Binge’ Flyers Make Sense? posted by Ecacofonix : 10:14 PM
0 Comments
Friday, May 11, 2007
Peak Oil is not About Running Out of Oil!
Peak Oil is not About Running Out of Oil!
May 10, 2007
If you hear someone saying the peak oil theory is wrong and that the world is not about to run out of oil, tell him that he is wrong in his understanding that peak oil is about our running out of oil.
This post at Oil Be Seeing You details on the same issue:
"...No one in the peak oil movement, unless they too are new to the movement and do not yet understand, ever says, or ever would say, that peak oil means the end of oil, means we are running out of oil. Most in the peak oil camp, in fact, believe we will never consume all of the oil there is, for a wide variety of reasons. In general only about thirty percent of the oil in a reserve is recoverable so there is always going to be oil left over in a field after the last well has been shut down."
The post goes on to explain what indeed is peak oil:
"Peak oil is about a global society and global economy that have become hopelessly dependent on an ever-increasing supply of cheap, high-grade oil, increasingly dependent also on natural gas and coal, the other main fossil fuels. It is about the impact on that global society and global economy when the supply of oil can no longer be increased, when the demand for oil exceeds what the world's oil fields can produce..."
Useful post for those who want to have a clear and detailed understanding of the Peak Oil term.
Read the full post here @ Oil be Seeing You
May 10, 2007
If you hear someone saying the peak oil theory is wrong and that the world is not about to run out of oil, tell him that he is wrong in his understanding that peak oil is about our running out of oil.
This post at Oil Be Seeing You details on the same issue:
"...No one in the peak oil movement, unless they too are new to the movement and do not yet understand, ever says, or ever would say, that peak oil means the end of oil, means we are running out of oil. Most in the peak oil camp, in fact, believe we will never consume all of the oil there is, for a wide variety of reasons. In general only about thirty percent of the oil in a reserve is recoverable so there is always going to be oil left over in a field after the last well has been shut down."
The post goes on to explain what indeed is peak oil:
"Peak oil is about a global society and global economy that have become hopelessly dependent on an ever-increasing supply of cheap, high-grade oil, increasingly dependent also on natural gas and coal, the other main fossil fuels. It is about the impact on that global society and global economy when the supply of oil can no longer be increased, when the demand for oil exceeds what the world's oil fields can produce..."
Useful post for those who want to have a clear and detailed understanding of the Peak Oil term.
Read the full post here @ Oil be Seeing You
Labels: analysis, fossil-fuels, opinions, peak-oil
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Energy Alternatives Competing For Funding
Energy Alternatives Competing For Funding
Advocates of various sources of alternative energy are beginning to point out the competition's warts. Everyone wants to use the energy crisis as leverage to support his or her solution.
But with limited government research and development money for ways to replace oil, any technology's gain is a loss for the others. So the criticism is flying in all directions.
Read more about the type of criticism each energy alternative is receiving, from this blog post @ Solar Sandiego
Advocates of various sources of alternative energy are beginning to point out the competition's warts. Everyone wants to use the energy crisis as leverage to support his or her solution.
But with limited government research and development money for ways to replace oil, any technology's gain is a loss for the others. So the criticism is flying in all directions.
Read more about the type of criticism each energy alternative is receiving, from this blog post @ Solar Sandiego
Labels: analysis, comparisons, investments, opinions, problems, trends
Cleaning Up Coal & The Future of Coal
Interesting discussion at this Biodiesel America page on Cleaning Up Coal & The Future of Coal
"
Hi JohnO,
I plan to look back at coal ten years from now the way I look at my old IBM 286 – dead technology. After we transform America to green energy making trillions of dollars of new industries in the process, we will reverse climate change – probably by making some kind of carbon dense briquettes (similar to coal) and putting them back in the ground. Right where they belong. JT
JohnO Writes:
Joshua: my parents forwarded this to me. I especially like his statement
"we've run out of backyards".
This brings to mind the question - what is the most concentrated form of
carbon that we might be able to sequester? Too bad glycerol doesn't
contain any significant carbon - we could sequester it, solving the
disposal problem. I could see raw veg oil as a potential carbon trap,
squeezing it out of beans and seed (and palm nuts) only to be pumped
into the ground to make room in the atmosphere for coal smoke. I'm
afraid to run the figures to see if that makes economic sense. Yikes!
Luckily I don't have the figures readily available, so I'll keep my head
in the sand a little longer. Sigh.
Cheers,
JohnO
"
Read the full discussion and the rest of the opinions here @ Biodiesel America
"
Hi JohnO,
I plan to look back at coal ten years from now the way I look at my old IBM 286 – dead technology. After we transform America to green energy making trillions of dollars of new industries in the process, we will reverse climate change – probably by making some kind of carbon dense briquettes (similar to coal) and putting them back in the ground. Right where they belong. JT
JohnO Writes:
Joshua: my parents forwarded this to me. I especially like his statement
"we've run out of backyards".
This brings to mind the question - what is the most concentrated form of
carbon that we might be able to sequester? Too bad glycerol doesn't
contain any significant carbon - we could sequester it, solving the
disposal problem. I could see raw veg oil as a potential carbon trap,
squeezing it out of beans and seed (and palm nuts) only to be pumped
into the ground to make room in the atmosphere for coal smoke. I'm
afraid to run the figures to see if that makes economic sense. Yikes!
Luckily I don't have the figures readily available, so I'll keep my head
in the sand a little longer. Sigh.
Cheers,
JohnO
"
Read the full discussion and the rest of the opinions here @ Biodiesel America
Labels: analysis, coal, fossil-fuels, opinions, trends
Friday, April 20, 2007
Let's get real about alternative energy
Let's get real about alternative energy
Henry E. Payne, Apr 2007
Wind power is intermittent. Wind and sun only run 8 to 9 hours a day.
Solar energy, with possibilities of up to 30 percent capacity factor, produced only 541,000 megawatt-hours of electricity in 2005. The subsidies for solar power are many times that for wind power simply...The capital cost of equivalent coal or nuclear generating plants is far less than the "alternative power" schemes.
These two (solar & wind) energy sources provided less than .4 percent of all the electricity generated in the U.S. for 2005.
Read more on Henry Payne's take on alternative energy from this interesting article @ Charleston Daily Mail
Henry E. Payne, Apr 2007
Wind power is intermittent. Wind and sun only run 8 to 9 hours a day.
Solar energy, with possibilities of up to 30 percent capacity factor, produced only 541,000 megawatt-hours of electricity in 2005. The subsidies for solar power are many times that for wind power simply...The capital cost of equivalent coal or nuclear generating plants is far less than the "alternative power" schemes.
These two (solar & wind) energy sources provided less than .4 percent of all the electricity generated in the U.S. for 2005.
Read more on Henry Payne's take on alternative energy from this interesting article @ Charleston Daily Mail
Labels: analysis, incentives, opinions, problems, solar, wind
Thursday, March 29, 2007
U.S. automakers still don't understand energy conservation
U.S. automakers still don't get it
By Tommy Denton, Mar 20, 2007
After the energy shocks of the 1970s, the US Congress demanded that U.S. automobiles become far more energy-efficient. The average vehicle mileage required under the 1970s standards rose from the teens to the mid-20s -- and then sat there.
Thirty years later, after a spasm of gluttonous gorging of fuel to power SUVs and other muscle machines, the world's most profligate petroleum consumer has fallen back into vulnerability. Rather than applying the basic lesson that those who eat too much should eat less, much of the American business mind has been dedicated to finding alternative fuels to sate the nation's ravenous energy appetite, says this interesting opinion piece.
Read the full article here @ Roanoke
By Tommy Denton, Mar 20, 2007
After the energy shocks of the 1970s, the US Congress demanded that U.S. automobiles become far more energy-efficient. The average vehicle mileage required under the 1970s standards rose from the teens to the mid-20s -- and then sat there.
Thirty years later, after a spasm of gluttonous gorging of fuel to power SUVs and other muscle machines, the world's most profligate petroleum consumer has fallen back into vulnerability. Rather than applying the basic lesson that those who eat too much should eat less, much of the American business mind has been dedicated to finding alternative fuels to sate the nation's ravenous energy appetite, says this interesting opinion piece.
Read the full article here @ Roanoke
Labels: conservation, efficiency, opinions
PermaLink - U.S. automakers still don't understand energy conservation posted by Ecacofonix : 10:32 AM
0 Comments
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
