patrick.net

Last week, corporate errand-girl Diana Furchtgott-Roth planted a propaganda article in support of the XL oil pipeline, with the occasion being an oil spill from a rail tanker. She went on and on about how pipeline was much safer than rail.

That was very unlucky timing for the pipeline propaganda, given the pipeline breakdown this week.

Big OOPS.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pipelines-are-the-safest-way-to-transport-energy-2013-03-29?link=home_carousel

Seriously, how many fuck-ups does it take before Obama and the other Republicans realize that moving vast volumes of dirty oil across thousands of miles is a really bad idea and that we need clean electricity from renewable resources like hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear fusion?

Dan8267 says

Seriously, how many fuck-ups does it take before Obama and the other Republicans realize that moving vast volumes of dirty oil across thousands of miles is a really bad idea and that we need clean electricity from renewable resources like hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear fusion?

I assume you have installed solar and/or wind at home and have signed up with you local electrical provider for renewable generated energy at a premium cost? If not it's your fuck-up as much as Obama and congress.

You are right we need to go for more renewable energy, but everyone still wants the cheapest energy which is oil and gas. It's like all the people say they would love to go back to mom and pop stores, but continue to shop at walmart because it's dirt cheap.

Sorry you can't have it both ways.

Laws and social engineering happen when the right people make big bucks. End of story

bob2356 says

I assume you have installed solar and/or wind at home and have signed up with you local electrical provider for renewable generated energy at a premium cost? If not it's your fuck-up as much as Obama and congress.

I'm a renter and therefore don't have a say in installing solar panels.

However, your point is wrong anyway. Small time solar projects aren't going to do jack diddly shit. Like all power production, solar, wind, and hydro have to be done on an industrialize scale. Already wind farms are being done on such a scale because land is dirt cheap in most places in this country (i.e., not along the coasts).

Solar needs to be done on the same scale. Mass production of cheap, printable cells all along worthless desert. Better yet, a disjointed Dyson's Ring could provide ten million times the world's current power consumption and such a ring could be built up gradually satellite by satellite .

But such solutions require imagination, not snarkiness.
bob2356 says

You are right we need to go for more renewable energy, but everyone still wants the cheapest energy which is oil and gas.

Oil, gas, and coal are not the cheapest. They are simply sold underpriced to consumers because people at large (including both consumers and non-consumers) pay the difference in terms of subsidies, tax credits, wars, and environmental damage. If you took the real cost of burning coal, including repairing the damage caused to the environment, coal would be the most expensive fuel on the planet and no one would use it.

Oil, gas, and coal are "cheap" only due to a form of theft called cost-shifting. Eliminate that theft and these sources are quite expensive.

IDDQD says

Damage from oil spills is temporary and limited

Hardly. The damage to Alaska from Exon and to the Gulf Coast from BP is still there. Populations of many species are effected and some will be driven to extinction. Furthermore, the economic damage is permanent as one can never regain a lost opportunity.

IDDQD says

damage from nuclear and hydro is long-term and sometimes permanent.

You're thinking fission like most people who don't know shit about physics. I explicitly said fusion. The word nuclear does not imply fission, especially if it is followed by the word fusion. This stupid cultural bias against anything that has the word nuclear in it is one of the causes of the energy crisis.

IDDQD says

Don't call electricity from hydro and nuclear "clean".

I am calling nuclear fusion energy clean, and if you want to challenge me on that, go ahead. Just don't be such an idiot to argue about fission when I'm for fusion; I want at least some kind of challenge.

Whether or not hydro is clean all depends upon how you do it. Although your limited imagination can't come up with a clean hydro solution doesn't mean the rest of us are so intellectually lazy.

The objections to hydro-energy are all based on disrupting local ecosystems on land by bodies of water like rivers and lakes.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/hydro.html
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/is-hydropower-really-a-clean-power-source.html

Can you pull enough brain cells together to figure out what the obvious solution is? Don't build hydro-generation systems near land. Hell, 73% of the Earth is covered by water, almost all of which is in big ass oceans far from land. Hell, if I had only 5% of the surface area of the Earth to work with, that would be good enough.

Floating tidal generators is one solution. It involves no reservoirs, no damns, no alteration of rivers, no buildup of settlement.

Rain towers are another solution, and they can be used on land. A rain tower (TM) is a device that uses the gravitational potential energy of rain to turn turbines. It's real fucking simple. You need a cylinder, a generator, and rain.

By the way, don't bother Googling "rain tower" as I just made up the device and whatever results you get will probably be about something else. Then again, perhaps someone else has thought of this idea too.

There, I just came up with two plausible examples of perfectly "clean" hydro-electric power. Given enough time, I could come up with many more. So when people poo-poo an entire field because of a few bad implementations, it's usually a mistake. However, feel free to poo-poo fields that have inherent flaws; for example, all fossil fuel solutions will pollute.

taxee says

Laws and social engineering happen when the right people make big bucks. End of story

Laws and social engineering have also happened when the people get the political will to correct injustices. See the abolitionist movement, progressive movement, the civil rights movement, and the marriage equality movement.

Dan8267 says

I'm a renter and therefore don't have a say in installing solar panels.

However, your point is wrong anyway. Small time solar projects aren't going to do jack diddly shit. Like all power production, solar, wind, and hydro have to be done on an industrialize scale.

Absolute and total bullshit. Putting solar hot water, heat, and pv panels on every house would be an industrial (ize) scale. Not only would you cut back dramatically on generation but transmission as well. The only question is if the ptb would ever shift the subsidies for carbon fuels to subsidize a project on this scale. The answer is no.

I must say that in many of your postings as a renter you are very free with advice and criticism for people who have stepped up to the plate and put their money where their mouth is by owning. Talk is cheap.

Dan8267 says

Oil, gas, and coal are not the cheapest. They are simply sold underpriced to consumers because people at large (including both consumers and non-consumers) pay the difference in terms of subsidies, tax credits, wars, and environmental damage.

Obviously you have no clue whatsoever of the history and subsidies of either hydro or nuclear fission.

Talking about non existent and possible not doable technology doesn't do jack about filling your car or running your computer here and now. People, as in governments and energy producers need to work with what they have. No one can seriously plan for buck rodgers in the 25th century gee whiz bullshit.

Oil spills suck, nuclear spills suck worse. It's the cost of living in our modern world. You use energy, so you are part of the problem same as everyone else. You are just more sanctimonious and hypocritical about it than most people.

IDDQD says

Write back when this fusion thing is viable as energy source. For now the only nuclear we can seriously talk about is fission.

It won't be a viable source until people start seriously researching into it. That's the point. Technology develops according to the resources devoted to it. So yes, fusion should be talked about seriously in the energy industry.

bob2356 says

Dan8267 says

I'm a renter and therefore don't have a say in installing solar panels.

However, your point is wrong anyway. Small time solar projects aren't going to do jack diddly shit. Like all power production, solar, wind, and hydro have to be done on an industrialize scale.

Absolute and total bullshit.

Tell that to my land lord. Better yet, get the government and the Fed to stop propping up housing prices so people like me can afford to buy a house and put solar panels on it like my brother just did. Of course, he doesn't live in south Florida, the epicenter of the housing bubble.

Till then, I'm in saving mode. Till then, I'm in saving mode.

bob2356 says

Obviously you have no clue whatsoever of the history and subsidies of either hydro or nuclear fission.

Before you make accusations, you might want to check your facts, or at least remember what was discussed on this very forum. I'll be awaiting your apology.

US Oil received 44% of US Energy Incentives, 1950-2010, hydro and nuclear combined received only 20%. And perhaps that's too much, but it's nowhere near the lion's share, which goes to oil.

At this point I would like to point out the inverse relationship between the amount of time for your apology and your emotional maturity level.

bob2356 says

Talking about non existent and possible not doable technology doesn't do jack about filling your car or running your computer here and now.

I work in the software industry. Technologies that were impossible a mere ten years ago are common place today: tablets and smart phones with GPS, compass, gyros, audio and facial recognition, high speed wireless access, video teleconferencing, 4 million pixel displays in a mere 10 inches.

Fuck, I see impossible technologies come to fruition every day. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.

So excuse me if I don't share your pessimistic and limited appraisal of technological advancement. It it the nature of technology to get faster, smaller, better, cheaper, more powerful, and more ubiquitous. It's not a question of what we can do; it's a question of what we should do. Unless a law of physics prevents it, some asshole in a garage will invent it.

IDDQD says

Damage from oil spills is temporary and limited, whereas damage from nuclear
and hydro is long-term and sometimes permanent. Don't call electricity from
hydro and nuclear "clean".

Hmm nuclear I agree. But what kind of damage from hydro are you talking about-the environmental impact of dams??

Dan8267 says

IDDQD says

Write back when this fusion thing is viable as energy source. For now the only nuclear we can seriously talk about is fission.

It won't be a viable source until people start seriously researching into it. That's the point. Technology develops according to the resources devoted to it. So yes, fusion should be talked about seriously in the energy industry.

Sorry Dan but no, sustained, controlled, net energy yielding nuclear FUSION is a pipe dream. I'm as pro nuclear as it gets. I've visited General Atomics in San Diego, spoken with their researchers, checked out their Tokamak reactor. After billions of dollars of R&D they have little to show for it other than a very impressive mass of stainless steel. My father was a nuclear engineer who was familiar with the fusion research of the day. As he pointed out fusion is always only 30 years away. That was true in the 1950s and it is true today.

You call for investment in research. Plenty of money had been invested since the early 1950s. The only return on that has been in the form of weaponry. Nuclear fission yielded sustainable energy from day one. Fusion STILL has not yielded jack even after 60 years.

If I am wrong please prove me to be so. I'd LOVE to see fusion come into its own. Until then I'd recommend you focus your enthusiasm into fission:

1) Open and start using Yucca mountain for its intended purpose.

2) Revisit the deep sea and sub-seabed disposal of nuclear waste. Its a safe and cheap way to "forever" dispose of the most dangerous forms of nuclear waste.

3) Adopt standardized reactor designs and BUILD, RUN AND MAINTAIN THEM RIGHT!

4) Transfer full legal custody of violators of rule #3 to AF - he'll know what to do with them.

bob2356 says

Putting solar hot water, heat, and pv panels on every house would be an industrial (ize) scale. Not only would you cut back dramatically on generation but transmission as well.

Except at night and cloudy days. Any trees that might shade the panels need to be trimmed. Also owners must get used to the fun of shoveling even a light dusting of snow off the panels in winter and hosing off the accumulating dust, leaves, etc. in summer. And that ONLY if you even have a property that's compatible with solar.

Dan8267 says

At this point I would like to point out the inverse relationship between the amount of time for your apology and your emotional maturity level.

Apology for what? Your chart doesn't mean anything. How about subsidies as a percentage of energy produced. That would be relevant. It would also be nice to have some type of reference of where this chart came from and the methodology used. Trust me, my chart is correct doesn't cut it. On a quick glance I notice the amount for the government covering all the insurance for the nuclear industry for 60 years isn't included. Any idea what that must be worth? Actually no does since private insurance doesn't exist for nuclear reactors.

Dan8267 says

I work in the software industry. Technologies that were impossible a mere ten years ago are common place today: tablets and smart phones with GPS, compass, gyros, audio and facial recognition, high speed wireless access, video teleconferencing, 4 million pixel displays in a mere 10 inches.

So your company makes it business plan based on technologies that don't exist yet and may never exist? That must be interesting for the stockholders. Do you have a point? Energy policy can be changed if a technology like fusion pans out, but it certainly can't be predicated on the possibility.

There is no lack of viable solutions. Just a lack of real leadership and the will to adopt the change. Look at all the total bs that we invest our time and money into. Then tell me we can't afford healthy sustainable lifestyles. It will happen eventually anyway if we don't destroy the planet first. We're like a bunch of psychotic toddlers.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse.html

Dan8267 says

I work in the software industry. Technologies that were impossible a mere ten years ago are common place today: tablets and smart phones with GPS, compass, gyros, audio and facial recognition, high speed wireless access, video teleconferencing, 4 million pixel displays in a mere 10 inches.

most of this was around well over 10 plus years ago far .... certainly 20-30 years ago.

Dan8267 says

US Oil received 44% of US Energy Incentives, 1950-2010,

blah blah blah... what the left keep harping what they call subsidies tax incentives are just up front costs (cash paid) related to Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing SPREAD across actual production periods.. its all part of US Accounting Standards (Matching Principle) .. Similar standards apply to mineral and other natural resource costs like lumber.