Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 23-04-2007

It’s back to the future today.

Thanks Kat and Gary.

Quote of the Day:

I share the belief of many of my contemporaries that the spiritual crisis pervading all spheres of Western industrial society can be remedied only by a change in our world view. We shall have to shift from the materialistic, dualistic belief that people and their environment are separate, toward a new conciousness of an all-encompassing reality, which embraces the experiencing ego, a reality in which people feel their oneness with animate nature and all of creation.

Dr Albert Hoffman

  1. Atlantis
    Now that scientists have suggested the wipe-out of the Minoans could be due to Santorini, AND be at the root of the Atlantian myth, any chance of them accrediting the numerous ‘psudoscholars’ who’ve been saying this since the 1950s?

    ….

    Sin is what you’ve done once you’ve been caught.

    Anthony North

    1. The simplest explanation is
      The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. But it is rarely the most romantic.

      Anyone heard anything about the plateau anomaly found on the sea floor on the eastern side of Crete? There was something on Discovery (I think) a few weeks ago about this.

  2. Munsch’s Letter
    I’m not too impressed with his little letter of indignation. He wants to make a point about how he was taken out of context, or even misrepresented, but then proceeds to qualify his pro-climate change positions (which is rather dumb, since everyone knows climate change has always been, and will always be, an active process on this planet) with a bunch of “facts” that do more to expose the holes and uncertainties in the global-warming crowd’s arguments than they do to unequivocally support them. Which was the point of the film to begin with.

    He concludes with an absurd, and very UNscientific, analogy about taking out insurance. In my opinion, his statements do more to support the swindle of this entire issue and how it’s completely currupted by politics, pop-science and emotion-based rhetoric than it does to damage the integrity of the film.

    1. Global Warming
      Most arguments against man-made global warming become credible when taken in the context of continual climate change. However, this is all part of a natural cycle. Is man’s contribution above this? I use a simple analogy here.
      A car, balanced on the edge of a cliff, needs only the touch of a human finger to send it over the edge.

      Oppenheimer: ‘You can have it any colour as long as it’s black.’
      Ford: ‘I am Death; Destroyer of worlds.’
      If only.

      Anthony North

      1. not quite
        The simple analogy doesn’t work. The balanced car on the edge is a linear system. The slight push will either be enough to make the car fall, or it won’t be enough. There are only 2 forces on the car, gravity and friction.

        Climate is not even close to linear, in a mathematical sense it is chaotic.

        So the timple argument that our influence, in the form for increased greenhouse gases, is large doesn’t mean anything by itself. Neither does the argument that our contribution is small.

        Another problem with the analogy is that the car is in equilibrium. The climate is not in equilibrium. It is not simply cyclical either. That is why very detailed simulations are done to come up with these predictions.

        —-
        Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

        1. Greenhouse Gases
          Surely we must separate the cause from the effect. The quantity and type of greenhouse gases is the cause, climate change is the effect. My car analogy represents the cause.
          If we then bring the disproportionate influence of man’s contribution to the cause, and apply it to the effect of chaotic weather systems, it’s a damned big butterfly.

          Sin is what you’ve done once you’ve been caught.

          Anthony North

          1. Far too simplistic…to say
            Far too simplistic…to say the least. And to say “The quantity and type of greenhouse gases is the cause” is factually inaccurate as there are far more variables in the equation than just greenhouse gases. The Sun being the most prominent. That’s one big ball of hot gas that the global warming crowd never cares to mention. Also, to say “climate change is the effect” isn’t very accurate either as it implies that the climate is usually, and normally, in a static state. But of course we all know that the climate is always in a state of change, so “climate change” is not a sound argument. But such simplistic logic is working wonders on the great unwashed masses, I’ll concede that.

          2. No
            No it is not that simple.
            The effect of greenhouse gases is not linear. There are many more contributing factors. The greenhouse gases are not the only cause.

            Cloud cover, heat transport by ocean currents. Solar activity, fluctiations in the earth’s orbit. Wobbling of the earth’s rotational axis. All these have effects on the climate, and they all interact with each other.

            You cannot just plug in one particular change, say the total CO2 output from industry, cars, cattle and such, and then get a temperature increase for 2050. It takes computer simulations that run for weeks on some of the fastest computers in the world.

            The only way to verify that these models predict things accurately is to start them with data from the past, and then run them towards the present. Then you compare the predictions made to what actually happened.

            That verification is very hard, mostly because the data from the past are very incomplete. Hence the interest in ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, to get more old data.

            We cannot separate the cause and effect, as the effect of today becomes the cause of tomorrow.

            Even if you say “everything else being equal”, an increase in greenhouse gases does not guarantee a warming climate. And then to make the problem worse, everything else is not equal.

            The problem gets harder – warming trends that we observe now in some areas do not mean that these trends will continue for 50 years.

            I am not saying that global warming is not taking place. I am also not saying that human influence is not a factor.

            What I am saying is that it is not nearly as obvious as the analogy makes it sound. In fact it is not obvious at all.

            —-
            Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

      2. “Most arguments against
        “Most arguments against man-made global warming become credible when taken in the context of continual climate change.”

        Which is the correct context since the climate IS in continual change.

        “However, this is all part of a natural cycle.”

        You got it. Man’s “contribution” to anything has yet to be shown to be of such magnitude as to be influencial in any way that alters global-scale natural cycles.

        1. a natural cycle
          I think even saying it is part of “a natural cycle” is way too simple. There are superpositions of many cycles. plus some more non-cyclical influences.

          Very few people understand how this works. Technically, nobody understands it – hence the massive computer simulations.

          Many people are convinced of the loudly promoted conclusions now. But that does not mean these convinced peple understand any of it.

          —-
          I need a new signature line

          1. cycles…..
            the essence of climate change or global warming is moot.
            The global macro-enviroment is effected all the time by micro-enviroment changes. Whether it is man or nature. The weather will change for a time until the disturbance has neutralised. In our situation it is the mass population and consumtion that is changing micro-inviroments at a fast pass. To think this will not effect the macro-enviroment would be ignorant.

            “While contemplating on their life, anyone who says they have no regrets and would do it all the same again, have not learn’t anything.”
            LRF.

  3. Its not just about warming
    And I believe that the quote by Dr Albert Hoffman address that issue. We live like kings and queens, never thinking of where our food, clothing and other resources come from. Few people in north america and europe make their own clothing, grow vegetables and butcher their own meat. Everything magical appears at the store! There is no satisfaction or pride in work we have done ourselves. Many have lost touch with the earth, and a diversity of culture. And the compassion for life around us.

    So we do not even know what we destroy, and we die a little each day. The earth, air and water is not ours. And we are polluting it killing animals insects and people in our quest for more crap. Even if we are not the cause of the warming we are the cause of the pollution,and we can stop that! What will you do today?

    1. Hmmmmm….sounds a lot like
      Hmmmmm….sounds a lot like religious zealotry to me.

      😉

      You make a sound emotion-based argument. But personally, I’m more interested in science.

      1. I too am interested in the science.
        Is there no science showing that we are polluting the air, water and earth we are living on? Can you not see what is happening around you!
        Passion for the only place we can live is not to be dismissed! Where are you and your children, and their children planning on living? Are you doing anything to do no harm? And again, what are you doing make a difference?

        1. “Is there no science showing
          “Is there no science showing that we are polluting the air, water and earth we are living on? Can you not see what is happening around you!”

          Yep, I can see that empty Pepsi can littering the side of the road. However, that has nothing to do with proving we are altering global weather.

          “Passion for the only place we can live is not to be dismissed!”

          In science, it most certainly should be dismissed. As we can see, it interferes with and influences science. The passion you are showing us is commendable, but better suited for a Sheryl Crow concert rather than a labratory.

          “And again, what are you doing make a difference?”

          I am doing my part to see that harm is not done, to our society, economy, nation and yes, climate, because of junk science and the political agendas driving it.

          1. Pick up the frickin Pepsi Can!
            Junk Science is a propaganda line. It’s B.S. You’ve drunk the Kool-Aid!

            Do you have no passion for what you do, or are you an automated robot that does only as your told for a check!

          2. in a nut shell, or…
            in this case an egg shell……you can shit in your own nest only a certain amount of times before you have to get OUT!

            “While contemplating on their life, anyone who says they have no regrets and would do it all the same again, have not learn’t anything.”
            LRF.

    2. wealth
      I say that most of the wealth in China, India, South America, Arabia, and yes even Africa has been created by the “western” societies. Along with many problems of course.

      Without western societies (European in particular), most people in the Americas, in Australia, large parts of Africa, would live in the stone age now. As would northern Asia. Southern Asia, China, Japan, Arabia, Northern Africa, would live in medieval feudal societies.

      Of course there are people who believe that the natural order of things should be the stone age, or medieval feudal societies. I can’t see how that is better for anyone.

      In fact, the earth, air and water are ours. We should take care of them, for our benefit.

      Who does the earth belong to, if not to us?

      Your point seems more neo-pagan religious than anything else.
      —-
      Failure is not an option — it comes bundled with Windows

  4. GGWS
    am i the only one seeing the absolute hypocrisy in wunsch’s comments–heres his exact quote- “By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important — diametrically opposite to the point I was making — which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.”

    please tell me how being “real and threatening in many different ways,some unexpected” is “DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED” to “human influence” — this argument is petty when weighed against the FACT that the stereo observers have recorded the same anomolous warming on mars

      1. Global Warming
        … as I was saying …
        Was my analogy simplistic? Yes. What is it saying? It is about the disproportionate effect of introducing a new factor (human produced greenhouse gases) into a closed system (the natural effects). The effect of the Sun and all other complications are irrelevant. They collectively form a balance. The question is: do man-made effects have a disproportionate effect? THAT is the question of interest.

        The Novel – fraud for the law-abiding.

        Anthony North

        1. closed?
          One of my several points was that earth climate is not a closed system.

          The effects of the sun are quite relevant, for example. The external factors do not form a balance.

          —-
          I need a new signature line

        2. Western Success
          To continue Earthling’s point about the success of the ‘west’ and whether the rest of the world would live in the stone age without us, can I suggest a philosophical point?
          Pre-monotheist societies lived with a ‘cyclical’ mind-set, where everything was simply a return to the beginning. Monotheism introduced the concept of advancement in linear terms. God taught – metaphorically, you understand – that man could have a direct effect in changing the world.
          It is this monotheistic inheritance that led to the European advancing at the rate he did.
          This has been successful, and had its consequences. The question I would ask is this: are these two mind-sets – the cyclical and the linear – simply two extremes? And would we all be better off if we found a balance between the two?

          ….

          A truly charitable society would have no need of charities.

          Anthony North

          1. A closed system
            A closed system includes whatever is relevant to its natural constituents. If the Sun has a natural effect, the closed system has to be extended to include it. The question is: are man-made greenhouse gases part of this natural closed system or not? If not, could their effects be disproportionate?

            Sin is what you’ve done once you’ve been caught.

            Anthony North

          2. man and sun
            Of course the sun has a natural effect, where do you live? There are variations in the sun’s activity over the years. There are some regular cycles, and there is a long term trend. There are uncertainties in our scientific understanding of the sun. There is a very small, but real possibility that it will blow us out of the sky tommorrow.

            Of course man-made greenhouse gases are a factor. It appears that this factor is measureable now. I don’t dispute that at all.

            I was only saying that the car-on-the-edge-of-the-cliff analogy doesn’t illustrate anything. It is a small point scientifically. But the analogy is just polemic, with no support in what is really happening. Forgive me for being so loud about it.

            —-
            I need a new signature line

          3. It’s Late
            If nothing else, the analogy has caused debate, and that is what is important. Earthling, be as loud as you like. I’m enjoying our exchanges.
            Anyway, where I am, it’s late. Time for bed.

            Nite, nite, everyone.

            Anthony North

          4. This idea that the system is
            This idea that the system is closed from man-made influences is a bit of an artificial construction as well. Man is as “natural” part of the system as are beavers and termites. If we are to assume that the actions of Man are influencing the system, then how can we say that that is not a “natural” variable in the system?

          5. Disproportionate Man
            If my analogy has a weak spot, this is it. But not as weak as you imply, Anonymous. Consider your beavers. If they suddenly gained technology, and built a city, what affect would that have on the environment?
            This is maybe a little flippant. Take human excrement – or maybe not. Evenly distributed within an environment the ecosystem breaks it down without an adverse effect. Indeed, the effect is beneficial. But then start depositing it en masse just off the coast, and it can overload the system, thus having a disproportionate effect.
            When we talk about ‘natural’ environmental usage, we must also consider the way in which this ‘natural’ activity is done. If done in an ‘unnatural’ way – i.e. in a way that it overloads the system – its ‘naturalness’ in terms of the natural way, declines, and its effect on the ecosystem becomes disproportionate.
            I would ask, could the same apply to the way we put greenhouse gases into the environment? Does it upset the delicate balance and become disproportionate?

            I am certain of only one thing. Nothing is certain.

            Anthony North

          6. green gases
            You do realize that all this carbon we are putting into the atmosphere from oil and coal originally comes from the atmosphere?

            And I still say your analogy is nonsense, for the reasons I have already mentioned a few times. No disrespect.

            —-
            I need a new signature line

          7. Man and Sun – Green Everywhere
            Just dipping my toe in…

            Assumption One: There is a direct correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and global warming

            Assumption Two: The green house gases – CO2 – we produce causes global warming.

            Well er…but…glup…

            In 60’s and 70’s scientists were convinced that the amount of CO2 we produce is bringing on an ice age in explanation of the global cooling trend being measured (snow in July, winters much colder etc) . As it was explained then: More CO2 means more clouds, more clouds means less sunshine reaching the earth surface, less sunshine reaching the earth’s surface means lower temperatures – hey it fits – global cooling and while we are on a roll why not toss in nuclear winter!

            However when the cooling trend reversed at the end of the 70’s early 80’s (winters much warmer, July is scorching ) well then, statistics can fit any model, as has been demonstrated time after time so…

            …so once global cooling didn’t fit any more change was needed in the market strategy, now it’s global warming instead of global cooling. But that change had to be developed slowly so as the general public had something logical to explain what is observed in weather effects and of course they will forget about the complete reversal of thought as the unnatural cold temperatures would be remembered as ‘normal’. (Quite predictable)

            Market forces at work – being green makes green!

            1/ 30 to 40 years ago money was there for research in anything to do with nuclear winters, and global cooling (and now it is reversed!)

            2/ Buy compact fluorescents (Ban the light bulb) to reduce green house gas to stem global warming (forget about all the mercury dumped into the environment – Opps, that will happen later!!)

            3/ Buy new “green cars” operative word…”NEW”

            4/ Coal burning power plants = CO2 so let’s get behind GREEN Nuclear Power. (Gosh! Who saw that coming?)

            5/ $Buy, $buy, BUY$$$$$!!!

            I am so surprised that here is a group so attuned to government conspiracies (UFOs) but has failed to see the biggest one yet – The green market so stimulated that everyone is manipulated to buy green. (The new RONCO “Green” slicer and dicer…excess potato peels in the trash produce more green house gas… so how much would you expect to pay…but wait, if you order in the next twenty minutes get the new RONCO ‘Green’ Anti Fart Pills…)

            Can you say “SHEEP”? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaa

            – Marketing is a serious activity performed only by professionals and should never be attempted at home!

            Cheers,

            TIZH HO

          8. The Green Secret Not Aired
            I agree with the above to a certain extent, but just to put a spanner in the works …
            Most Green marketing today is mere ‘cosmetics.’ To be really green would be to totally remove fossil fuels from our economy. No oil, folks, none at all.
            This is why the multi-nationals only play at green issues. For the reality would be devastating for them. Chances are a fully green economy would not require massive, global companies, but smaller, local ones dealing in alternative fuels. The big money men would lose their power.
            As for nuclear power, we should fight this with every breath of greenhouse gas we have.

            Morality takes two. One to do, and one to judge.

            Anthony North

          9. Clean nukes
            [quote=anthonynorth] As for nuclear power, we should fight this with every breath of greenhouse gas we have.

            [/quote]

            Nuclear power can be reliable, safe, and clean. Why do you say this?

            Bill

          10. Not with the Nukes we have now.
            Radioactive waste is radioactive and deadly for 10’s of thousands of years. We don’t propearly store it now! Go with sun and wind power first. We can make it work. If we spend 100’s of billions on new energy instead of weapons. Which is often tipped with depleated urainium ore, spreading around even more radioactive waste. I see anthonynorths point.

          11. Wasted nukes
            [quote=bladerunner]Radioactive waste is radioactive and deadly for 10’s of thousands of years.[/quote]

            Some is, some isn’t. Some contaminated clothing and tools can be cleaned, some waste can be transmuted, and some high-level waste requires requires deep burial.

            [quote=bladerunner] We don’t propearly store it now![/quote]

            That depends on who you mean by “we”. In the US, high-level waste is stored in underground tanks or stainless steel silos on federal reservations in South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington and at the Nuclear Fuel Services Plant in West Valley, NY. These facilities have begun programs to solidify and structurally stabilize the waste in preparation for disposal at a national repository. Yucca Mountain, Nevada is being considered. Shooting the waste into space is being discussed.

            Now, if by “we” you mean the French, you’ll get no argument from me. The stuff doesn’t float.

            [quote=bladerunner]Go with sun and wind power first.[/quote]

            Both are in use now. Each has limitations making both impractical for the bulk of the power required.

            [quote=bladerunner]We can make it work. If we spend 100’s of billions on new energy instead of weapons. Which is often tipped with depleated urainium ore, spreading around even more radioactive waste. I see anthonynorths point.[/quote]

            Present conditions require us to keep pumping-out swords, but there’s enough for a few plows as well. Money is not the problem.

            Bill

          12. simple experiment….
            hold something very hot on your toe nail…..then try to understand what this experiment means to your argument. If nothing then think again and again until the penny drops. Then you may understand what many don’t.

            “While contemplating on their life, anyone who says they have no regrets and would do it all the same again, have not learn’t anything.”
            LRF.

  5. There’s money involved!
    My kitchen stove runs on LPG. Whilst paying a bill recently my supplier offered me the option of buying “Green Gas” at only $3 a month extra. I requested information as to what, exactly, “Green Gas” was. Answer – well the gas was the same as the gas I bought now, but would be produced in a more environmentally friendly way. Oh really!!!!! How??????????? I declined the offer as I knew exactly where the extra $3 a month would be going – into the supplier’s bank account.

    Regards, Kathrinn

    1. green electrons
      For a while, in Germany, you could buy a filter-type device that would not let electrons from nuclear power plants into your house.

      —-
      I need a new signature line

      1. Carbon
        Just come back on-line to read thefloppy1. Can anyone tell me what the hell he/she was going on about? Never been any good at cryptic. Or was that the interlude to the debate?
        I missed your comment earlier, Earthling. To my recollection oil and coal is the remnant of old life stored deep underground. To what degree is this reactive with the rest of the planet in this state?
        Is it the same, less, or more than its reactiveness once extracted and burned? Is this man taking something that was out of the natural, and reintroducing it?
        At the end of the day, I’ll concede a point. Of course my analogy is unscientific – by being an analogy it has to be, hasn’t it? The point is, does it make a point of value? Does it hold a wider message about the unnaturalness of some things man does on this planet? Does the ‘finger’ of man continually push the boundaries to unacceptable, destructive degrees?
        The fact that it may offer something to climate change is a bonus though …

        To debate is not to change your opponent’s mind, but to lay the views before an audience.

        Anthony North

        1. coal and oil
          Yes as far as we know, coal and crude oil are remnants of old life. The carbon of this old life came from the atmosphere, and from the oceans, it used to be CO2. So by burning fossil fuels, we are putting the CO2 back where it came from. Recycling at its finest 🙂

          —-
          I need a new signature line

          1. Excellent debate on GW
            I always expect the worse when I see 38+ comments posted after my news briefs. “Who did I offend this time?” I wonder, and also if Greg’s email server has survived the flood of complaints and lawsuits. So I’m pleasantly surprised to find a mature, thoughtful debate about the articles I hoped would provoke such balanced discussion. Thanks guys, you’ve made my day! 🙂

            It’s good for Greg’s email server too.

          2. Shortsighted
            Earthling,

            That CO2 has been stored over millions of years and humans recycle it back into the atmosphere in a mere 200 years, hardly a natural proces going on here- far from it. Humans are destroying their habitat, the earth can take it but can humans ?

            matter of choice;
            Intimidation, corruption and lies, or serenity, sharing and sincerity.

        2. my appolodgies……
          my comment was ment for anonymous. It also references the 1970’s as far as global cooling go’s. Similar to a flash point. All looks fine and under control just before flashpoint. Then all hell breaks out. The experiment I sugested is one of stored energy. You do not feel the heat in your toe for a few seconds, then you remove the source of heat but the burning sensation keeps going and there is nothing you can do about it until the stored energy is depleted. Same as the rolling snowball. If it is not stopped before it reachs a certain size, it won’t be stopped.
          BTW I agree with all your comments.

          “While contemplating on their life, anyone who says they have no regrets and would do it all the same again, have not learn’t anything.”
          LRF.

          1. Apologies
            Bill, just to add to Bladerunner’s reply about nuclear energy, I feel the attempt to bring back a massive nuclear power programme is an attempt by big business to guarantee ‘big’ answers, and a role for big business, whereas a move to alternative power would involve smaller, more local businesses. A much better thing.
            Floppy, in the heat of debate we can occasionally go overboard and even make mistakes. I love TDG because at the end of the day we can all be friends. My apologies.

            Nite, nite.

            Anthony North

          2. nuclear = power generation -diasters – safe
            i for one dont buy this garbage they telling us nuclear waste is safe – especially knowing how long it lasts and we all know cant contain this indefinately – they are so il-responible.

            lets face diasters happen and like the small tsunami in 2004 which happens nearly every 1600 years, expect for the huge ones like atlantis that hit on more of a 1/2 precession depending on a cycle above. – so last one hit around 9389bc so next one is due 3571 – what plans do they have to move nuclear waste and arms when something of a disater on that scale happens. will they be able to move this waste to safer areas – because we all know claims have been that these areas of stockpiling this waste will be underwater. — they dont have any plans – they dont think, we are dealing with corrupt polticians that dont have any focus on the future or possible dangers.

            but thats part of the problem with todays society –
            people in control or in power determine the fates of others because they move into a position regardless of having a proper mindset and usually dont do the responible thing.

            plus i think there are better ways to generate electricity and think people can generate electric power at home in various ways – using possiblity – wind, even running water movement, maybe even small machines to convert things like natural gas to electricity and store onto a battery.

            lets face it – a system based on 1 source to generate electricity is absolutey nuts and unreliable during diasters or when operators on grid fall asleep on the job.
            i live in canada and was shocked when finding out that power failure that knock us out and most of northern states to ny was due to some joker that didnt flip a switch and we losted power for day – but some spots so long – because there was a overflow and it caused a domino effect.

            but like i said – better way of doing it would be home based and having smart metors and homes can even allow to put electricity back on grid and get credit for it.
            -best way for long term, safer, it has a backup system, cleaner,

            but seems like government and business like doing the worst things just to do some big projects – to waste our money – while they get a nice deal or something in return.

            i learn about the population boom, global warming and pollution 30 years ago. at that time pollution index was around 4 and sickens me to see them continuing to pollute at these levels – where index is hitting the roof and thousands are dying in my province in canada because of it.
            and yet the big polluters in the world think its ok.
            and yet in canada – we have such a small population, even a negative birth rate which means less people less pollution because lowers the need for products and driving, and so much air space – but the index of population has hit the red.

            anyhow i gave my 2 bits, but pollution and nuclear is a no no and they should redesign the way they do things.

            i mean – start even using running water or movement of water to homes to generate electicity instead of nuclear – they have to start thinking, i am a problem solver by trade – and it makes me sick seeing what these jokers have been doing last 30 years – or should i said havent been doing.

          3. Nuke ’em
            Hi Anthony,

            If we had the same energy requirements that we did 100-years ago, I would agree with you.

            But in the US we’ve got 300-million people that want heating, air-conditioning, home theaters, and microwave ovens. At least half of them want to fly in airplanes and drive cars to places like Las Vegas that burn the lights all night. And that requires power and lots of it. It seems that there are other people in very populated places (China [1.3-billion] and India [1.1-billion] come to mind) that want to live like we do in America, and that requires power as well. Don’t kid yourself, the folks in Europe burn oil too.

            At the same time, we want clean air and water and crystal-blue skies and puffy, white clouds.

            I don’t think that these are small numbers; they are massive. The solution is massive energy producers, not smaller, local producers as you propose. Smaller, local energy producers might work in a third world country that wants to remain that way. But who wants to stay that way? And why shouldn’t the people in China and India live the same lifestyle as we do if that’s what they want.

            The solution is to produce energy in massive amounts that doesn’t pollute the atmosphere -build nuclear reactors. Save the diesel for the freight haulers and heavy equipment, burn kerosene in the airplanes, use nuclear reactors to produce electricity, build battery-powered personal vehicles (simply switch battery-trays at the service stations), and it’s all blue-sky and sunshine. Yes, businesses that produce high-efficiency batteries and those that own nuclear resources will get rich. Buy stock in them. Oil companies and oil producers will suffer. That’s tough. It’s time to move away from an oil-economy anyway.

            Nuclear power, like fire and gasoline, can be dangerous. Nuclear power can also be properly managed. Think about it – nuclear submarines have been around about 60-years. If they leaked any radioactive contamination the enemy could track them anywhere in the ocean. But they are safe and clean.

            We don’t build breeder reactors like the Cherbonyl reactor. I’m sure you know that a nuclear generator cannot become a bomb – wrong fuel, wrong containment system. No contamination ever escaped three-mile island because fail-safe design works. Nuclear generators pollute less than dams in the production of electricity. Yes, they do. ;o)

            Let’s nuke ’em.

            Bill

          4. we need massive energy production
            >>”… in the US we’ve got 300-million people that want heating, air-conditioning, home theaters, and microwave ovens. At least half of them want to fly in airplanes and drive cars to places like Las Vegas that burn the lights all night. And that requires power and lots of it.”

            I agree. (Hope you were sitting down when you read that. haha) Problem is, the US’s 360 million power consumers are just the tip of the iceberg. Billions of people need far more power than is currently being produced. And by the time we build more power plants (of any kind) to meet current demand, billions more people will have further increased demand.

            >>”The solution is massive energy producers, not smaller, local producers as you propose.”

            That can’t solve our pressing near-term problems. Our aging power grids will have to be updated to handle a massive increase, and we haven’t even begun to upgrade the grid, mainly because the relatively few experts who’ve extracted their heads from the sand on that issue are still arguing about how best to go about it, and whatever they eventually agree to do is going to take quite a bit of time and effort to accomplish, and will also cost a massive amount of money. And even though a host of new coal-powered power plants are in process of being built (which also takes time), we’re still likely to face massive blackouts due to the frequent failures of old grid components.

            There are a couple of affordable things we may be able to do in the short term to mitigate the problem, but for them to work, massive numbers of ‘locals’ would need to get with the program. We’d need a massive number of plug-in hybrid cars, so that when people drive home from work, power companies could use the hybrids’ stored power to meet peak energy demand. And individually, massive numbers of people will need to do what they can to limit their demand – add more insulatation to their homes, use CF light bulbs, upgrade to Energy Star appliances, etc. But in order for most people to be able to pay for those sorts of upgrades to their homes, some company will need to build a slew of affordable plug-in hybrid cars, preferably like the one we read about this week, that gets 100 mpg.

            >>”No contamination ever escaped three-mile island because fail-safe design works.”

            Compared to the utter disaster it could have been, relatively little contamination escaped. I’m sure there was some local contamination – because my mom’s first cousin is the nuclear engineer who was sent up there from Engles Shipyard in Pascagoula, and put in charge of cleaning it up.

            >>”Nuclear generators pollute less than dams in the production of electricity. Yes, they do. ;o)”

            Even if that’s true in the short term, there’s still that little problem of what to do with the nuclear waste. Where are we going to put it for the next half-million years or so, that we’re absolutely certain won’t be vulnerable to, oh, say, a supervolcano like Yellowstone, an asteroid, or, more likely, stupid humans?

            Kat

          5. Nuclear waste
            Repeating myself (this thread)to bladerunner when he claimed “we” don’t properly dispose of nuclear waste:

            That depends on who you mean by “we”. In the US, high-level waste is stored in underground tanks or stainless steel silos on federal reservations in South Carolina, Idaho, and Washington and at the Nuclear Fuel Services Plant in West Valley, NY. These facilities have begun programs to solidify and structurally stabilize the waste in preparation for disposal at a national repository. Yucca Mountain, Nevada is being considered. Shooting the waste into space is being discussed.

            Now, if by “we” you mean the French, you’ll get no argument from me. The stuff doesn’t float.

            ***************

            The alternative is to keep on burning oil and coal. Windmills have limited capabilities and solar is inefficient, expensive, and short-lived. There’s plenty of coal and oil, but sometimes it’s not easy to get.

            Bill

          6. Bill If you really looked at how well waste is stored.
            Washington state is an example. When the leak they NOW have gets to the Columbia River. No one will be able to live here and drink the water. Billions of dollars have been spent on ideas that have not yet worked, billions. 60 mins. did a interview/story on it about a year ago. People who know are a bit frantic about it. Because its real and happening NOW!

            If we can’t take care of it now, no new nuk plants!

          7. Panic, surrender – all is lost
            Yes, you appear to be frantic. If I believed there was a leak and I lived there, I might be frantic as well.

            If there’s a leak, fix it. There’s nothing magic about radioactive waste, just difficult. Shoot the stuff at the sun. Put in in wastelands encased in concrete.

            Only one other source can supply the kind of power needed. The only alternative is just give up keep on doing what you’re doing now. Exxon and Shell appreciate your help.

            Bill

          8. Bill you really don’t get what this stuff is!
            “If there’s a leak, fix it. There’s nothing magic about radioactive waste, just difficult. Shoot the stuff at the sun. Put in in wastelands encased in concrete.”

            Its already in the wastelands of Washington State in corrosion proff barrels, encased in concrete. The barrels have corroded and the concrete has failed. TA DA! see how well that works. And it wasn’t even 50 years in the ground all nice and tidy. As for shooting it at the sun, please don’t insult my intelligence any more on this subject. What if it explodes before it leaves our atmosphere? As rockets sometimes do. All you need is one! What a great idea Bill.

          9. What this stuff is
            BR:

            Are you talking about Hanford in Washington State? Hanford was built during WW II as part of the Manhattan Project to produce the atomic bomb. Plutonium was made there until it was shut-down in 1989. In fact, two-thirds of the High-Level Waste(HLW)is stored there, a nasty mess of radioactive cesium and uranium. And you’re right – it leaks. It also has little to do with nuclear power generation, the topic under discussion.

            95% of the HLW, the waste that remains toxic for 100,000-years, is generated from the production of nuclear weapons. We have now developed new processes in the past sixty-years or so for the disposal of HLW. Programs have begun to solidify and structurally stabilize the waste in preparation for disposal at a national repository.

            As for Hanford, the time of storage exceeded the design limit of the containers. But, as stated, it’s just an engineering problem. It’s a difficult problem, but there’s no magic required. Thus, the HLW at Hanford is also in the process of conversion into leak-proof glass logs for safe, permanent storage. According to the EPA, as of January 2006, the design and construction of the new Hanford treatment plant was more than 50 percent complete.

            I don’t think you fully appreciate the value of this HLW solidification and stabilization program or perhaps, you didn’t know what HLW is or from where it comes. But once again, only 5% of HLW is a result of power generation. There is now a much safer process to dispose of that waste.

            Bill

        3. Another Analogy?
          [quote=anthonynorth]Just come back on-line to read thefloppy1. Can anyone tell me what the hell he/she was going on about? Never been any good at cryptic. Or was that the interlude to the debate?[/quote]

          No, his point eludes me as well. That’s worrisome because thefloppy1 is usually a terrific poster.

          Bill

          1. A Green World
            Good morning. It looks like it’s going to be a nice day where I am. It’s been raining but now the Sun is burning the clouds away. Sometimes it’s windy in the morning; sometimes, by the sea, I see the generation of huge waves. Looking out the window, I think, what do people think of this?
            The aesthete sees the natural beauty of it all. The entrepreneur or politician will think, if I ruled the world. The average person today will think, ‘great it’s stopped raining – my hair won’t get wet going to buy my new iPod.’
            I think: I’m living in the centre of the biggest power station imaginable. Then another thought strikes me: if all the brains and money had gone into harnessing this power that went into nuclear or oil, we’d be in a far better, safer, cleaner world. So why didn’t it?
            This is the most important question – and, by the way, what really lies behind the Green debate. And that answer is found in the responses to this beautiful morning above. Put simply, the average person wants his consumer goods, so he conspires with the big businessmen and politicians who provide them.
            It’s a duality of purpose. The consumer makes the rich richer and more powerful, and big business seduces the consumer to feel he is satisfied. The system offers the consumer the illusion of freedom. They allowed political correctness to provide this, creating a world where you can be what you want to be – as long, that is, as you have a mortgage, fat pension plan, new car, wear designer clothes and holiday twice a year. That’s the thing about an overall power structure – what it wants you to be is absolute.
            The illusion of you being allowed to be what you want to be is equally important. Local politics, religions and cultures demand duties in return for rights. Duties tend to make a person less likely to descend into consumer culture. That, in terms of global economics, is bad. So the system is rigged to degrade local culture, giving meaning only in consumer choice, and allowing the multi-nats to become more powerful than some countries.
            Pollution, most present wars, most crime and psychological problems are the result of this crazy, fundamentalist system. It is empire-building by stealth, and it is so successful because we all conspire to keep the system going.
            At the centre of the system is a need, by big business, to provide big answers – a huge integrated oil industry, for instance. The Green debate offers us a way to break this cycle, to empower, once more, the local, as a counter-balance to diversity-destroying globalisation. The present attempt to re-introduce the nuclear industry is big business’s attempt to maintain the big system after the oil is gone, or Greens win the ‘right’ to alternative cars.
            If for this reason only, we must fight it.

            Oppenheimer: You can have it any colour as long as it’s black.
            Ford: I am Death; Destroyer of worlds.
            If only.

            Anthony North

          2. objectives
            I believe the Green parties around the world is making one large mistake: they are mixing environmental objectives with a pre-determined political agenda.

            The environmental problems are complicated, and in principle these are technical problems. How to provide enough energy for a reasonable lifestyle, how to provide enough food, housing and such. And how to do all this cleanly, to keep people healthy and be able to keep all this up in the long run.

            The view that the main obstacle preventing us from achieving these kinds of objects is Big Business is unproductive. It comes from the history of the Green movement, in that the early activists had significant socialist and anti-business points of view.

            We should focus on the technical points first. What needs to be done? What improvements do we need to make? What new methods do we need to invent?

            When we know a few of those things (which is the state that we are in now), individuals and business need to be convinced to actually apply solutions.

            If on the other hand, we search for the guilty and put them in jail, without improving what we do otherwise, then nothing will change. On top of which, it seems to me that the early Green movement has already found the guilty before really investigation what happened.

            —-
            2 is not equal to 3 – not even for large values of 2

          3. I’m not a Greenie
            I certainly don’t associate myself with the Green Parties. I don’t talk about ‘gaoling’ or banning anything. I didn’t even say big business was the main culprit. The problem is a kind of symbiosis between big business and the consumer. If attitudes are to be changed then it is the consumer we need to aim at.
            I’m simply saying that through the consumer, big business has a monopoly on power, upsetting the diversity of the world and piling problem upon problem.
            That said, I agree with most of what you say – the technical fixes are important. But these must be eco-friendly for the environment’s sake, and not a new round of monopolies for big business, as would happen with nuke power.

            As children we dream of silly things. As adults they get sillier.

            Anthony North

          4. The Energy Business
            Your priority seems to be a redistribution of wealth rather than the cleaner generation of power. You have not yet explained how massive amounts of energy, green or otherwise, are to be produced if not by “big business”.

            BTW, solar panels, windmills, bio-diesel, ethanol and just about every other green-energy alternative that you can mention are all produced and sold by someone trying to make money. These people are in business. Some devices are more efficient than others and some are greener than others, but none is greener or more efficient than nuclear power generation.

            I get my electricity from a co-op, so I suppose that I’m the big business. If I generate power they will buy it from me.

            Bill

          5. monopolies
            Indeed crating new monopolies won’t help anything. My political point was just that throwing out big business won’t help anything, yes many Green activists have seen it as their main goal. I know this because I have talked to them. For me, if we can come up with good solutions for environmental problems, and the same big-oil people stay filthy rich, that’s ok. We don’t have to fix all problems at once.

            On to technical Green debate, a few remarks:

            While I’m not opposed to nuclear power generation, it has a significant technical disadvantage apart from the scare factor. That disadvantage is the power loss of long transmission lines. Because nuclear plants are very expensive, there tend to be relatively few, relatively big plants. Hence longer transmission lines.

            A distributed generation method (for every house or street) would have something like a 7% efficiency gain just by avoiding the extremely long transmission lines.

            The problem is that we don’t know of a good power generation that works on a small scale, and is as (relatively) fault tolerant as the big power grids. Solar and wind for every house or village doesn’t provide consistently available power. Diesel for every house or village is dirtier than centralized coal power. Fusion is 40 years away, just as it was 40 years ago. We should do more research in fusion, but we can’t wait for it.

            A lot could be solved if we had better energy storage, that would help with the consistent availability.

            Another problem is creating a new infrastructure. This takes a lot of time and money. On the other hand, building infrastructure is where economies grow, and where the standard of living gets better. At least after a while.

            —-
            2 is not equal to 3 – not even for large values of 2

          6. Give smaller a chance
            Bill, I’m not sure where redistribution of wealth comes in. Redistribution of power and influence, certainly. A CEO of a smaller, more local company may get less, but it shouldn’t affect shareholders, etc.
            As to where new tech should come from to provide adequate power, if I knew that I’d be very rich. But I do trust in man’s technological brilliance to work it out. I don’t trust the huge multi-nats to allow this brilliance to flow freely.

          7. That won’t happen Anthony
            So long as the main psychological paradigm remain what it is.

            Changes will happen when there is no choice, not by choice.

          8. You may be right …
            You may be right, Richard, but I’ll remain optimistic … or maybe naive. However, I do know that when we get to the brink, we emerge intact. We are a stupid species most of the time, but not suicidal.

            Nite, nite

            Anthony North

          9. Not suicidal…
            In relation to our material lives but we do get caught from behind by being unconsciously suicidal psychologically or psychically. That is why we are stupid.

            I do not believe that we can emerge intact, at least in terms of our perception of selves.

            I would say that we will go on but that the destruction of the foundation of the current mindframe of this civilization will force humanity to redifine itself.

            We will be forced to challenge everything that once was the base for our false security to replace it with real security.

            This will require our consciousness to refuse all lies, may they come from within or from others.

            Until then, we will continue to psychologically push back against any real change.

            We are creatures of habits and only the salutary crisis can force us out of our conditioning. Nobody likes to live through a crisis so we prefer to rationalize into believing that everything is right.

            So, in a sense, everything is indeed right, because it is known already that without the crisis, nothing would change.

            We choose to give ourselves choices where there is what must be done and we do that in the name of freedom. That is the illusion of free will. We are perfectly programmed to react and not act.

            So, I would suggest that what will remain intact is the future evolution of man but certainly not what he comforts himself into believing is his right.

          10. something like that
            Richard says

            We are perfectly programmed to react and not act.

            Sure most people don’t do anything when conditions are good. Why should they?

            The question is how far ahead should one look to decide if a change of course is necessary. Most people don’t look ahead very far. There is probably a reason for that – not enough information to decide anything. If there is not enough information, any decision is mostly random. Hence it is best to not make a decision until you have to.

            Then the question is, exactly when do you have to make a decision? People who make good decisions early are later admired as “leaders”. People who make bad decisions early are “fools”.

            If you make a decisions way too late, when your situation has become untenable, and you still have no information, it is called “panic”.

            —-
            2 is not equal to 3 – not even for large values of 2

          11. Decisions VS choices
            The problem as I see it is that we simply don’t make decisions, we instead make choices.

            I see those choices being made always in an attempt to relegate what must be done for later.

            It is not so much the when but the ever.

            When we are forced by events to move, it is not a decision, it is a crisis that leaves no choice.

            In other words, what I mean is that a decision is the process of getting the process of what must be done started and to support its consequences over time.

            Making a choice is looking in directions other than what must be done to give ourselves alternatives that will allow the impression that we have done something but within the confines of the psychologically acceptable.

            We do this for even the small things of everyday, and much of this typical reactionary process lies on the fear of losing, the fear of being wrong.

            The decision forces the individual to choose between having his cake or eating it while the choice delays the inevitable because we seek ways to have our cake and eat it too.

            As for the information aspect of your post, I know what you are saying. On the other hand, how often do we say “I knew it”. How often do we say “I knew I should have done this or that”.

            When you don’t know, well you don’t.

            Problem is that more often than not, we would rather not know because it would go against what we want.

            See what I mean?

          12. similar
            I think we are saying similar things in different ways. The horizon of most people is quite limited. It can be described in terms of optimization algorithms as a simple local search, I can’t find any good explanations for it online. So here is a somewhat vague description of the method, called “hill climbing” (among other things):

            Imagine a person wanting to get to higher ground near a hill. The person does not have good eyesight.

            So the person keeps one foot stationary, and test the elevation with the other foot in a few direction. Then (s)he moves to the highest elevation found.

            Repeat.

            This is what most people do. Some people try to use a long stick to test the elevation a little further away. This can improve their rate of ascent.

            The method is quite reliable when there is one hill, and you are close to it. It has serious problems where there are lot’s of hills and valleys. And you won’t find the nighest mountain top, only the closest.

            It also causes confusion when you are far away from some steep hills, on level ground, and causes “aimless wandering in the plain.” You can get aimless wandering on a plateau as well. I think that is where most consumer societies are today.

            Panic happens when the water level reaches you local hilltop, and you have to jump.

            —-
            2 is not equal to 3 – not even for large values of 2

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal