Skip to main content

View Diary: Troll Rating Fritz Haber, Jimmy Kunstler and the Oracle at Snowmass, Part 2 (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Here's why its apples-to-apples (0+ / 0-)

    Building more nuclear power plants today is impossible.  It takes years (as in 10 or more) to build one, even with today's technology.  The other solutions, once developed, will be built much faster.  So yes, we should compare present nuclear technology to future renewable technology.  Is that fair?  I dunno.  But that's the problems with large, centralized solutions like nuke plants.

    The question is whether we spend a few $billion on a single nuclear reactor (that will be ready in 10 years, even if we use today's technology), or a few $bn to simulataneously invest in CSP, flying robotic wind farms, thin film solar, and directly expelling CO2 from the stratosphere.

    That's an apples-to-apples comparison.  If any one of the latter items works, the results would go a long way towards solving the energy crisis.  Even a partial hit would be enormously beneficial.  I'd pass up a single nuke plant for a chance like that any day of the week.

    •  Sorry, that's crap (3+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      LIsoundview, Plan9, enochthered
      Hidden by:
      indycam

      Sure, it takes years, but for a well-oiled nuclear industry, it takes less than 5 years to build a nuclear plant. They have demonstrated this again and again in Japan and in other areas of the Far East.

      In the West, in Europe and the US, it is not going to go as smoothly at first, as the experience that the French have had building a new plant in Finland demonstrates, but it will take only a few plants (and get this clear ... it will take more than a few plants if we are serious about replacing coal) before the FOIK (first-of-a-kind, and engineering term) issues get resolved.

      Sorry, but you're not even comparing apples to apples when you compare today's "renewable" technology to nuclear. You're comparing today's "renewable" technology to something that was designed in the 1960's. I wasn't even born then!

      Even then, you still lose out:

      Before this year, the last nuclear reactor that was brought online in the US was Watt's Bar 1 in 1996. In the decade or so since this (1996-2006), ... the nuclear industry has added over seven times the amount of electricity production as the entire amount of the wind generation in the US, without adding a single reactor. (In fact, several reactors were retired in this period of time.) If that is not spectacular, then what is?

      You're talking about spending billions of dollars on research. (Do you expect a breakthrough next year? The next decade? When?) I'm talking about spending billions of dollars on things that can be built now. The new designs for nuclear reactors are available today. They are not concepts; they are fully realized designs. These designs will be built in Europe; they will be built in China; they will be built in Japan; and they will be built in other parts of the world, whether you like it or not. So why should the US sit idly by and pray for "flying robotic wind farms" and "thin film solar"? It would be great if one of these technologies took off and could do something significant, but waiting for a miracle is not my idea of an energy plan.

      Sorry, you are not comparing apples to apples. Well, maybe you're comparing Earth apples to Martian apples. That I could believe.

      •  Damn, NNadir (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        indycam

        Here you go looking for troll ratings, and I am the one who ends up with one.

        Well, there's no telling where small minds will strike. They can be unpredictable at times.

        Cheers!

        •  Now, now... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry, enochthered

          Let's not get all whiny about it and start writing long elaborate diaries about how you're just like Fritz Haber and Galileo.

          A good troll rating once in a while is good for you and it's good for the environment.

          The last time I got troll rated it suddenly caused world carbon dioxide output to fall by 700 million tons, all because the entire planet was convinced by my troll rater's deep, deep, deep, deep serious convinction on climate change.

          At the same time, all of the induced Chinese karsts formed by abandoned coal mines that I was writing about were all filled up by non-toxic super duper sequestered biofuels made from sustainably grown corn and soybeans that did not need Haber-Bosch derived nitrogen be grown, since they had sucked all the nitrogen they needed out of the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.

          Then my troll rater was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for having found such a quick and obvious solution to the problem of dangerous fossil fuel waste, and of course, went to Stockholm to accept it in a solar powered 767 aircraft - First Class of course - accompanied by Amory Lovins, genius, and the entire Board of Directors of Rio Tinto, the board having been very, very, very, very relieved that it would no longer have to lay awake at night worrying about its abandoned mine pits.

          You know those guys can't sleep at night, because ever since they started paying Amory Lovins $20,000/day to tell them that they need to be "environmental" like he is, they've felt awfully guilty about keeping the ski patrol out late on Aspen Mountain and about destroying the water supplies of hundreds of thousands of people to mine gold and diamonds and stuff like that.   Now they're negawatty, just like you and me.

          This all seems like such a small price to pay for accepting a troll rating from a person trying to distract attention from the fact that he or she couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste.

          Look at the bright side:  Getting troll rated will give you deep, deep, deep, deep insight into the life of Fritz Haber and that's what my diary is about, isn't it, the life of Fritz Haber?

          •  NNadir (0+ / 0-)

            "he or she couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste."

            Do you enjoy being a troll ?

            l'essentiel est invisible

            by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 07:53:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well it is a fact (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plan9, perdajz

              that when I review your comments, you haven't displayed much interest in the fact that coal waste in the air killed 24,000 in the US alone every year.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              You replied, AFAIR, that so what, sunshine is warm.

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              It's hard to demonstrate a higher level of unconcern than that.

              However, coal burning kills even more worldwide, especially in China:

              http://www.american.edu/...

              A report from the National Environmental Protection Agency titled, The Condition of China's Environment, read, "the death rate due to cancer in urban areas had increased by 6.2% and that of lung cancer by 18.5% since 1988".(3) In 1993, China's death rate was 664 per 100,000, and the number one cause of death was respiratory disease in agricultural areas.  In city areas, the number one cause of death was cancer, and lung cancer accounted for 37 of every 100,000.  In addition, in the northern urban areas of China, the total suspended particle readings averaged 407 micrograms per cubic meter per day, and 251 micrograms in southern cities.  Some places read as high as 815 micrograms.  The World Health Organization safety guidelines are set between 60 and 90 micrograms for total suspended particles. China's readings are over two and three times what is considered healthy.

              In fact, just mining the coal is deadly.
              http://www.thestar.com/...
              In China, coal mining kills an average of 18 people per day.

              And all of that completely ignores that coal is the leading cause of greenhouse gases at this time.

              And as to whether closing nuclear plants causes coal plants to be built, consider Maine, where Maine Yankee was closed.  Three groups want to build a gassified coal plant there.
              http://business.mainetoday.com/...

              And consider TXU's case in Texas again.
              http://money.cnn.com/...

              TXU would like to generate more nuclear energy - it plans to apply for permits to build up to three nukes in 2008 - but getting a green light from industry-friendly Texas regulators for coal plants, even with all the brouhaha, is a lot easier than obtaining the federal government's approval to build a nuclear power plant. No new permits for nukes have been issued since the 1970s.

              That leaves coal as the best fuel available to satisfy America's ever-expanding appetite for electricity - all our computers and big-screen TVs and air-conditioned homes and offices need juice.

              When you look at big companies with 11 billion to invest, like TXU was, they consider coal & nuclear interchangeable as sources of baseload power.  They will build what ever is easier & cheaper to build.  

              Having found that there was pushback on the dirty coal plants they wanted to build, TXU has switched its focus & plans to build nuclear plants.  Yup during the buyout negotiations, there was talk of greening its image with windfarms, which it may well do.

              http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org...

              But what it is doing for baseload, now that it can't build 17 cheap coal plants, settling, AFAIR for 3?
              http://news.mongabay.com/...

              Texas energy company TXU will abandon plans to build coal-fired power planets and will instead focus on building the largest nuclear power plants in the United States according to an article from The Wall Street Journal.

              In your own home, you can choose to conserve.  You can choose to install wind or solar.  But when power companies build baseload power plants, their choices are nuclear and coal.  And only one of those is greenhouse gas emission free, and that one is not coal.  And one of them exposes those that live near it to more  radiation than the other, and that one Is Coal:

              Former ORNL researchers J. P. McBride, R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco made this point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations. This ironic situation remains true today and is addressed in this article.

              The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.

              http://www.ornl.gov/...

              Even if you protest both, as in the TXU case, what will happen, is that companies, like TXU, will still choose which of the two (coal or nuclear) is easier at the time, and perhaps build a few windfarms or a solar CSP plant as a showpiece to green up their overall image.

              •  Your logic (0+ / 0-)

                "you haven't displayed much interest in the fact"
                is faulty .
                You make up your arguments out of whole cloth .
                I've never commented on the vast majority of things that are of great concern ,
                by your logic , I'm not concerned .

                "It's hard to demonstrate a higher level of unconcern than that."
                Its a very foolish argument that you are putting out .
                Telling me same old thing over and over and over again
                is as new as me telling you the sun is warm and rain is wet .

                "However, coal burning kills even more worldwide, especially in China:"
                Thats old old news .
                How many comments have on the improved stove project have you made ?
                How much time , money etc have you put in on the improved stove project ?
                In a real world cost benefit analysis ,
                what would you do first to reduce the amount of airborne pollution that 3rd worlders are exposed to daily ?
                Can you provide data to back up your choice/s ?  

                "In China, coal mining kills an average of 18 people per day."
                Miners dying is old old news , mining is dangerous , old old news .

                "And as to whether closing nuclear plants causes coal plants to be built"
                I will let you guess on whether this is new or old .

                "he or she couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste.""you haven't displayed much interest"
                I know a guy in Hawaii , he was a customer of mine ,
                he was high up in HEI . I discussed with him more than once what was coming out of the smokestacks at the power plant . Heated , well informed discussions . This was 10ish years ago , so the thoughts that "he or she couldn't care less" "haven't displayed much" are just ridiculously foolish statements .
                If you get this so very very wrong , how can you be trusted , at all ?
                The more you comment , the less regard I have for you ,
                you just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper .

                http://pacific.bizjournals.com/...
                http://www.bizjournals.com/...

                l'essentiel est invisible

                by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 09:36:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Plan9, bryfry

                  I haven't commented on the solar stove project in Africa.  For one thing, I'm not an expert on that project, but a friend of mine, Dr. Robert Gordon, an anthropolist at UVM, told me about it several years ago.  It's a good project.  I hope they build and use a lot of them.  It will be good for those that use them and for the environment as well.  

                  That has nothing to do with either coal or nuclear energy and baseload power in the US, and I am puzzled as to why you would bring it up?

                  http://solarcooking.org/...

                  I'm assuming this is the project you're referring to?  

                  It's not a new concept.  The first I saw of solar cooking was folks cooking eggs on the sidewalk on hot days in AZ on TV in the 1950's.  And I've used some variants on solar stoves back in the day when I was a girl scout 50 years ago.  They've improved a lot from the ones I knew.

                  As to what is the most important pollution issue in Africa, I would go with the problems with the water rather than the problems associated with wood burning and cooking.  

                  http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...

                  That would be the guinea worm project & malaria projects, etc, that  Bill Gates is involved with. To be interested in global warming, first you have to survive your early childhood.  In Africa, that's not a given.

                  But again, that has nothing to do with power choices by utility companies in the US, which is what I thought we were discussing.

                  I fail to understand your interest in whether information is new or old. New or old is irrelevant.  What is relevant is what is true and what is false.  For example, Gravity works.  The fact that this was discovered by Newton and refined by Einstein long ago does not keep it from being true.  And it is also true that coal kills many, many people and keeps on killing.  Since you say this is old, I assume that you belive this, since you discussed it with a guy in Hawaii 10 years ago?

                  And what is new in what I told you is this:
                  It is often asserted by antinukes that choosing between coal and nuclear is a false dichotomy. And in your own home, indeed you can choose otherwise.  You can, if you wish, fry your eggs on the sidewalk, too.

                  But if you are a large utility corporation, and you are producing baseload power, it is demonstrably true-and I demonstrated it by showing that when nuclear use was foiled in Maine, coal plants followed.  The new thing is that the other half of the proof has just been demonstrated as of 9/25/07 (can't get much newer than that) When coal plants were foiled in TX, nuclear plants are now (just today) applied for by NRG, and TXU is also planning applications.

                  The reason that large utility companies make the choice this way is because there is currently almost no storage of electricity on the grid.  They require baseload power-steady 24/7, and preferably relatively cheap.  Their choices are nuclear vs. the fossil fuel of choice in their area.  This is because wind & sun are both chaotic and intermittent.  In the desert, sun is pretty predictable (not chaotic), but as summer & winter & day & night still occur in the desert, it is still intermittent.

                  If you would care to read more about how the electrical grid works, here are some links.  The articles have further interesting links:

                  Baseload power
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  Peaking power
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  Storage & dealing with changes in demand
                  http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/...

                  Grid/Power Transmission
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                  Understanding how our electrical system works in this country is key to understanding why power companies do what they do when they choose various power strategies.  

                  Or you may not be interested.  

                  I can't help that you do not respect me.  I can only tell you what I believe to be true (my opinion) and what I know to be true (facts).

                  It's my opinion that global warming is the most important issue of our times.  This may not be true for you?  You haven't said.  If you do believe that, as I do, then it's of high importance to me that you take the time to understand what causes global warming and what does not.  Coal does.  Nuclear doesn't.  (fact)

                   

                  .

                  •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

                    "I haven't commented on the solar stove project in Africa. "
                    I didn't ask you about the solar stove , I asked you about the improved stove . They are not one and the same . I guess from your misunderstanding , that the improved stove is new to you . Try reading up on it . google it .

                    "That has nothing to do with either coal or nuclear energy and baseload power in the US, and I am puzzled as to why you would bring it up?"
                    You posted this ,
                    "However, coal burning kills even more worldwide, especially in China:"
                    the people of the world need clean air , if you are truly concern with what your fellow humans are breathing in , then you should already know of the improved stove project . If as you say you are concerned about global warming , you would maybe be pushing the project forward .

                    "But again, that has nothing to do with power choices by utility companies in the US, which is what I thought we were discussing."
                    In my opinion we are still on the subject , has nuke waste ever killed . I say it has . I have shown how it has , other have tried to say zero have been killed . Do you say zero or not ?

                    "Understanding how our electrical system works"
                    "Or you may not be interested."
                    What part of this do you think I don't already know  ?  How would you like it if I said you need to study up on this ?  Do you like to be patronized ?

                    "I fail to understand your interest in whether information is new or old. New or old is irrelevant."
                    "learn some facts," bryfri
                    If I am to "LEARN some fact" , it can't be old facts that I have already read that I can learn , is it ?
                    If I am the "LEARN some facts" they should be new to me , if I'm going to , LEARN , them .
                    So far , no new facts have been posted , just already old ones . I keep asking for something new and all I get is old old old . Its like reading last weeks newspaper over and over . Boring .

                    "And what is new in what I told you is this:
                    It is often asserted by antinukes that choosing between coal and nuclear is a false dichotomy."
                    Thats new ? Does not sound new to me . How long have you known this ?  

                    "It's my opinion that global warming is the most important issue of our times.  This may not be true for you?  You haven't said."
                    You have not asked , you have patronizingly jumped to the wrong conclusion , over and over and over again .

                    "Coal does.  Nuclear doesn't.  (fact)"
                    If I told you that rain is wet and the sun is warm ,
                    and then I did it again and again and again , at what point would that little fact act get really Fing old ?

                    "I can't help that you do not respect me."
                    You have been rude , nasty , insulting ,and  patronizing . Go back and read what you have posted .

                    l'essentiel est invisible

                    by indycam on Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 10:40:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I have tried very hard not to be rude (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Plan9, bryfry

                      insulting and patronizing.  Apparently I have not succeeded.  And therefore, I apologize for any statements I made that you find rude, insulting and patronizing.

                      What I have been trying to ascertain is what your position is.  I'm stupid.  For example, if you don't use a wink or some such punctuation, I don't always understand when you're asking a rhetorical question or snarking.  Such was the response on the solar stove.  I even started by telling you that I didn't know much about it, but had actually heard of it, so you would know that anything I said further was not meant to be the last word on solar stoves, but I didn't wish to seem unresponsive when you asked why I hadn't commented on solar stoves here or in any other diary.  

                      Furthermore, I can't tell what you know.  I don't know you well enough.  I stuck the links there in case you would like them, not because you necessarily needed them.  You made the mistake up above of asserting that solar power was not intermittent in the desert.  I take it, then that that was a typo, and you meant not chaotic, since it caused me to assume that you honestly didn't know the difference?

                      So to save time, and to avoid getting fooled by comments that you are making that are supposed to be snark, and that I'm too dumb to get, let's start over.  And no, this is not snark.  I really want to know.

                      1.  Do you believe that coal kills lots of people every year, both in the US & elsewhere?  Do you believe these deaths are unimportant because they are old news?
                      1.  Do you believe that global warming is the most important issue of our time?  Or do you believe that stopping nuclear power is more important than global warming?
                      1.  Do you believe that nuclear power is one of the low greenhouse gas producing energy sources?
                      1.  Do you believe that all our energy needs can be supplied by solar, wind and hydro alone?
                      1.  Do you believe that shutting existing nuclear plants is productive to limit global warming?
                      1.  If (hypothetically) you had to choose between shutting a coal plant and shutting a nuclear plant, which would you choose?  Hypotheticals are the devil, but I would really like to know.
                      1.  Do you believe that in the US, when utility companies build baseload power plants, the choices they make are, as the wiki says, between fossil fuels, hydro (where available), and nuclear?
                      1.  Do you know about the Megatons to Megawatts program?  If so, do you oppose it?
                      1.  Do you know that solar is intermittent everywhere, including the desert?  (Up above, you asserted that it wasn't intermittent, which caused me to make some erroneous assumptions about what you did and didn't know.  But anyone can make a typo.)

                      Possibly, if I understood better where you're coming from, we could have a better discussion.

                      Because frankly, I have found you extremely rude and insulting, too.  I also have found it hard to guess what is new to you, since I don't know you very well.  

                      But again, if I offended you, I apologize for doing so.

                      •  Really good question (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Plan9, bryfry

                        and one I suspect many won't answer:

                        If (hypothetically) you had to choose between shutting a coal plant and shutting a nuclear plant, which would you choose?  Hypotheticals are the devil, but I would really like to know.

                        We need to repeat it often.

                        •  Its a terrible low question , (0+ / 0-)

                            "6.   If (hypothetically) you had to choose between shutting a coal plant and shutting a nuclear plant, which would you choose?  Hypothetical are the devil, but I would really like to know."

                          Asking such a question without providing any of the necessary facts surrounding the need to make that incredibly complex and difficult decision , makes it just a game . All plants have less than infinite lifetimes , they will be closed or refitted at some point . If you are asking me to shut down a plant before its "done" , your going to have to give me data showing me a cost/benni , needs , replacement source/cost etc etc etc . Until all the data is in hand , studied , debated etc etc etc , making the right choice of what plant to shut down would just be a game of coin flip .

                          You would also need to pay me some very big bucks to get that question , real world , answered .

                          If you want to spin out hypotheticals , I can make the case for neither being shut , both being shut , one or the other being shut , and or any combo , given the chance .

                          l'essentiel est invisible

                          by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:37:03 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The other questions are not hypotheticals (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            I did not expect you to answer question 6, (as I said, hypotheticals are the devil) but I did hope you would think about it, because it's the most important question in the list IMO.

                            The other questins are not hypotheticals, so I did hope you'd answer them.

                          •  Are you going to (0+ / 0-)

                            answer my questions ?
                            Or is this just a one way street ?
                            Shall I round up all the questions I have asked that have not been truly addressed ?

                            "I did not expect you to answer question 6, (as I said, hypotheticals are the devil) but I did hope you would think about it, because it's the most important question in the list IMO."

                            Its not a new question , its just the same old question reworded . The real world question is far far more complex that an , A or B .

                            I have put down for you to see my answer to #6 .
                            where is yours ?

                            Did you read the article about nukes , coal etc
                            from one of the founders of greenpeace ?
                            I posted a link to it above .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:45:12 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Greenpeace article (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            no I didn't recall reading it, particularly.

                            On question 6, if you want me to answer my own question, I will.    There is no nuclear plant currently active in the US that I would shut down if I could shut down a coal plant instead.  There are areas where I would not choose to build a nuclear plant however, if hypothetically, if I got to chose the site.

                            If you look down further, you see that I tried to answer all the questions I found.

                          •  Coal plants are exempt from Environmental Impact (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview

                            Statements.  A coal-fired plant does not have to demonstrate that it will have a low environmental impact.  Nuclear plants do.

                            Deadly coal waste, containing toxic heavy metals like arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, is exempt from the being classified as hazardous.

                            Odd, when you think about the 2000 people per month that die from toxic coal waste--small particulates, mainly.

                            Most people, once they understand the terrible health risks from coal and how the safety record of coal-fired plants compares with that of nuclear plants, do not have a problem deciding which baseload energy resouce is superior.

                            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

                            by Plan9 on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:41:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Coal plants are exempt from EIS" (0+ / 0-)

                            They should not be exempt in any way shape or form .
                            I can't imagine a mom and pop store can be built without an EIS , let alone a coal burner .

                            If they never have to account for the real world externalities , they are getting away with murder .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 12:06:26 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are exactly right (0+ / 0-)

                            The coal plants are getting away with murder.

                            The murder of approximately 24,000 people a year.

                            And yes, they don't have to file EIS.

                            Heck, under Bush, CO2 isn't even counted as a polluting gas.  

                          •  It is all about cold hard reality (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Plan9

                            Americans won't accept returning to a cave man lifestyle.

                            Forcing coal overnight to live by the rules everyone else does would send us to that lifestyle.

                            Hence nothing is done.

                            Natural Gas can't replace coal - there isn't enough to do that.  We're constrained by supply already.

                            Wind is adding as fast as it can.

                            That leaves nuclear.

                        •  Good prediction (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LIsoundview, Plan9

                          ... and one I suspect many won't answer

                          You were right, at least, in this case, but then again, I'm not surprised.

                      •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

                        "You made the mistake up above of asserting that solar power was not intermittent in the desert."
                        Prove it ! Show me where I said "solar power was not intermittent in the desert" ! If you can not do this , then your statement is an attack ,  a lie and slander ! The very opposite of what you claim you want , "a better discussion."!

                        "Possibly, if I understood better where you're coming from, we could have a better discussion."
                        If you want a "better discussion" cut the attacks , the lies and the slander , stop your patronizing .
                        Focus on what has been posted , don't try and force people into positions that they do not hold .

                        "Such was the response on the solar stove. "
                        Improved stove , IMPROVED not solar .
                        The subject of my question was NOT solar .
                        The improved stove project is NOT solar .
                        You wish to talk about solar so bad that you are forced to twist my question about non solar improved stoves into a question about solar stoves . Great ,thanks 0% for playing that game with my question .

                        http://www.google.com/...
                        http://www.punchdown.org/...
                        http://www.mongolia-web.com/...
                        http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/...
                        http://povertystoves.energyprojects.net/
                        http://www.hedon.info/...
                        http://72.14.253.104/...
                        http://www.farmradio.org/...
                        http://www.hedon.info/...
                        http://www.helperitrea.org/
                        http://sgp.undp.org/...
                        http://www.ashdenawards.org/...
                        http://www.appropedia.org/...
                        http://www.mtexpress.com/...

                        I will answer all your questions after you go back and answer all of mine that were asked first .
                        If you can not be bothered to answer my questions to you , why would I ever bother to answer yours ?

                         

                        l'essentiel est invisible

                        by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:01:42 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I apologize if I miss some of the questions (0+ / 0-)
                          1. Is Greenpeace corrupt?  I think it's a definite possibility that people at the top of Greenpeace are corrupt.  I can show you that Greenpeace has engaged in joint projects with TXU, one of the nastiest utility companies, at least twice.  The projects themselves are fine, but the business writeups show all the principals as being very chummy with each other.  I also can show you that Greenpeace did not protest the 17 TXU coal plants, nor did they join in the suit that caused many of them not to be built.  It's also a possibility that this is mere coincidence. Without the resources of a large police agency, I can't get you real proof.  An alternative interpretation of their actions is that they believe that global warming is less important that getting rid of nuclear power.  They might have several other motiviations.  I would love to hear their explanation.  I am waiting to see whether they attack TXU's new nuclear plant plans.  If they don't, while attacking NRG's new nuclear plants, for example, I would suspect even more that they are corrupt.  This is my opinion, but it is not a proven fact.
                          1.  Is noticing that we seem to get a designated troll rater in each of these diaries a conspiracy theory.  No.  It's an observation.  It may simply be a coincidence.   But it is a coincidence that I've noticed.
                          1.  When I used the word 'all' of the environmental organizations protesting TXU, it was an example of hyperbole.  However, it is true that many environmental groups protested.  And that Greenpeace did not.

                          Those opposing the granting of permits to build and operate the power plants included the Sierra Club and other national environmental groups, new Texas rural citizen groups, the Clean Air Coalition of Cities, the Waco Chamber of Commerce, and numerous individuals from around the state.

                          Furthermore, they did it where it counts, in the court room.
                          http://www.stopthecoalrush.com/
                          You tube of Billionaires for Coal protesting TXU
                          http://www.youtube.com/...
                          http://blogs.wsj.com/...
                          http://texas.sierraclub.org/...

                          You asked for pictures and links; here are some.  If you need more, I'll look for more and try to post them.

                          1.  Intermittency-in rereading, I find that I have confused you with chapter1.  You did not make that comment.  I was wrong, but I was not 'lying'.
                          1.  Can I prove that you do not care a lot about the 24,000 people per year in the US who die from coal?  Yes, although you disputed the proof.  When Plan9 told you 24,000 people die for year, you replied:

                          http://www.dailykos.com/...
                          I said then, and say now that this statement shows a shocking unconcern for those 24,000 lives per year.  However, perhaps you did not mean what you said or were only joking?  You then kept asking for new facts.

                          However, you followed up by saying the 24,000 dead per year are old news.  Again, this is not an answer that shows a high level of concern IMO.

                          If you do have a high level of concern, you should say so.  I have a very literal mind, and sorting your snarks from what you believe is difficult for me.  I will know better on this subject if you answer my questions.

                          1.  You asked can I prove you're an antinuke.  If you answer the questions I asked, I will know better what you believe and don't believe.  If you're not an antinuke, I am lost to explain why you are bothering with all the work you're going to here.
                          1.  Stoves-I am at a complete loss where the stoves came from.  I told you, I know very little about new stoves, other than I wish I could afford a new stove.  Mine is 40 years old, literally.  The first time, I asked you whether I had located the program you meant.  From your first answer, I thought I had the right program, but for older stove models.  Now you tell me I don't have the right program at all & you have added a lot more links that I have to read to answer more fully on stoves.  I will try to do so more fully in a second post, after I finish trying to find & answer all your questions to me.  

                          I have (other than those in this thread) made no comments on the improved stove project because I know nothing about stoves and would have little to contribute. The third world is a damn large place and I wouldn't presume to know what would improve their air the most.  However, getting CO2 levels lower is a safe bet to improve their lives by lowering global warming. The current administration does not consider CO2 pollution.  Before I answer your question in a later post, I need to know whether I am allowed to include CO2 as an air pollutant.

                          I do care about people in 3rd world countries and will try to read up on your stove and see where that leads.

                          1.  I wasn't in the discussion about nuclear waste, but you ask my opinion.  As I need to know whether you consider CO2 an air pollutant, you need to know that I define nuclear waste as used fuel rods and lesser sorts of radioactive waste from commercial nuclear reactors.  Given that definition, no, I know of no one has been killed from nuclear waste.  The reason I define nuclear waste this way arises out of the question, "what do we do with nuclear waste"  which of course is not about stuff in the air from nuclear bomb blasts or Chernobyl; it's about the wastes from the commercial nuclear power industry. Wastes from the military industry, including bombs are a separate issue.  Megatons to Megawatts is a great solution for getting rid of old bombs, IMO
                          1.  Reading up on the power industry.  I certainly found it useful to read up on how it works in this country.  I thought you might be interested too.  I'm a physicist & semiconductor engineer by trade, and I had only the sketchiest conception of how the power grid really worked until I had time to read up on it a couple years ago.  By giving you the option to read if interested, or not, if not interested, I was not trying  to suggest you didn't know about it and needed to study, only to make it easier for you if you wished to do more reading.  I'm sorry if you found this patronizing.  It was not my intent.
                          1.  No I do not like to be patronized.  Your comments about weather are patronizing and I can say definitively that they do indeed get old.
                          1.  As you said, it was bryfry, not me, who told you to learn something.  So this question is not for me, as far as I can tell.  You complain of boredom--I'm sorry that I have been boring, but it would be easier not to bore you if you would answer my questions...it's why I asked them.
                          1.  How long have I known that people keep saying "false dichotomy"-about 8 months, since I have been reading this series of diaries.  It's a particularly odd & silly way to say what they mean, IMO. Again, what's new is not that people say this and that people respond that when a nuclear plant is closed, a coal plant is built.  The new thing is that the TXU case has shown when a coal plant is closed, a nuclear plant will be built.  I found that new interesting. YMMV For a dichotomy, two things must be true: "shutting nuclear plants implies opening coal plants for baseload power" has been proved, and now the other half "shutting coal plants implies opening nuclear plants for baseload power" has also been demonstrated.
                          1.  assumptions about what you think.  All readers make assumptions about what a writer means.  It is often true that the reader will be wrong.
                          1.  If I knew what you wanted to say by commenting on sun and rain, it wouldn't get old at all.  We could discuss the facts of the case.  That's why I asked you some questions; so I could respond to you better.
                          1.  Why would you answer any of my questions?  I don't know.  Perhaps because you actually wanted to have a discussion?
                          1.  Guinea worm--I read too fast--I find your t s eliot paragraphing and punctuating hard to read.  I am nearly blind in my right eye, and in addition wear trifocals--just seeing is hard for me, and it leads me to problems some times.  This was a mistake of mine.
                          1.  How can you take seriously someone who says "I couldn't care less?"  (the I in the case meaning you, I assume?) Easily.  You need to examine why you give that impression and answer that you do care about the 24,000 deaths and the 400,000 or so worldwide.  You have a tendency to give flip answers, as weirdly enough, does NNadir.  It is not a writing style that serves either of you well.

                          I have gone to a lot of trouble to try to locate your questions. In the last NNadir diary, there was for example, a person from Oregon who when this conversation can up, replied that he truly likes his coal plants because the power's cheap and doesn't care about the increased death rates involved with them.  Once the person asserted that I knew exactly how to respond to him. I assume you are not like him, but if you don't tell me, I don't know.  I am a very poor mind reader.

                          So how about it?  Are you going to answer my questions now?  (You can skip question 6, since you require me to pay you to answer it)

                          While waiting for you to answer, I will read more about the stoves.

                          •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

                            "Intermittency-in rereading, I find that I have confused you with chapter1.  You did not make that comment.  I was wrong, but I was not 'lying'."

                            Is the above in regards to this ?

                            "You made the mistake up above of asserting that solar power was not intermittent in the desert."
                            Prove it ! Show me where I said "solar power was not intermittent in the desert" ! If you can not do this , then your statement is an attack , a lie and slander !

                            Intermittency-in rereading =
                            alternation of phases of apparently periodic and chaotic dynamics - in reading ?

                            Have you now read up on the improved stove project worldwide ?

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 06:20:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes-- (0+ / 0-)

                            The poster who made the comment about sunlight in the desert not being intermittent was named chapter1.  For some reason, I confused his/her comment with one of yours.

                            Intermittency-in rereading =
                            alternation of phases of apparently periodic and chaotic dynamics - in reading ?

                            I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here.  

                            I read the articles you linked about the improved stove project.

                            What seemed particularly nice about it to me was the effort made to fit the stove to the cooking methods and foods of each culture rather than trying to make a one size fits all stove.  I did not, however, see any place in this project for a superannuated, half blind retired person with a disabled husband.  It appears to be funded by grants from Ashden & WHO, and so not seeking contributions as far as I could tell from the article I read, which is about all the use I could be to the project.

                            I think I have managed to answer all your questions?

                          •  LIsoundview (0+ / 0-)

                            "I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here."
                            You posted ,
                            "Intermittency-in rereading" ,
                            so I asked  ,

                            "Intermittency-in rereading =
                            alternation of phases of apparently periodic and chaotic dynamics - in reading ?"

                            ..................................

                            "What seemed particularly nice about it to me was the effort made to fit the stove to the cooking methods and foods of each culture rather than trying to make a one size fits all stove."
                            Thats not the "nice" thing , I will in the morn , cut / paste , whats nice / ultra important .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 07:33:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok, I see (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes--once again, I apologized for wrongly attributing chapter1's comment to you.

                            I'm sorry that you don't think it's nice that the people in the project took special care to adapt the improved stoves to the culture.  I still do.

                            Yes, the project does other things.  It saves time collecting fuel, saves fuel (hence trees, and hence lowers CO2 emissions), and improves air quality inside homes so that people will be much healthier.  The same would all be true, only more so, if the people were using solar stoves.

                            It is the fact that the people can make their own stoves and that the stoves are appropriate for their ways of cooking that insure that such stoves will actually be used & will continue to built, which justifies developing and promoting them vis a vis solar stoves.

                            So it was the cultural sensitivity here that I particularly admired.  

                          •  The solar stove is great (0+ / 0-)

                            but its not a real good way to cook .
                            Trying to get people , millions and millions and millions , women actually , to move away from cooking over a flame as they and their mother and their mothers mother etc etc etc have done , is an undertaking of such magnitude , that imho , the moon shot looks easy in comparison .
                            Getting people to do less work gathering fuel , paying for less fuel while lowering the deadly conditions they cook / work under , easy .
                            It frees up the women to do more important things than spending hours gathering fuel for wasteful open hearth type stoves . It frees up the children so that maybe they can spend more time in school .

                            I dare say , based on nothing but pure supposition  , that getting half the 3rd world old fashion stoves replaced will have net greater overall positive impact on global warming , environmental degradation , species protection , death rates from airborne pollution , etc etc etc , than shutting down the nasty dirty coal fired plants .
                            But saying that is pointless because its not an A or B .
                            Coal is a cheap energy source if you disregard the externalities . Disregarding the externalities is what people have been doing and will keep on doing unless they are forced not to . Coal is and will continue to be dug up and burnt , I fear , until all the coal is gone or another source of energy production is found that is really cheaper . Its very unlikely that the nations of the world will say with a united voice , coal must not be dug up and burnt . I fear the polar caps could turn into vast molten vats of lava and some people would still dig up and burn coal .

                            .......................

                            People in this thread have stated that I am antinuke this is not true .
                            I am not 100% for or against nukes or coal .
                            I am against outrageous claims / statement in support of one or the other .  

                            If somehow I was put in charge of all the on off switches for all the power plants world wide , I could not turn off all the coal plants and turn on all the nukes , or turn off all the nuke plants and turn on all the coal plants .

                            .......................

                            The claim that safe clean reliable nuke power has never killed is , imho , an outrageous claim .
                            Chernobyl is the most glaring , over the top , bright red flashing neon example of that externality .

                            If on the other hand it was presented as approx min max deaths per "exajoule" year , decade , century . coal vs nuke ...

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 10:32:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Indycam thanks for the answers (0+ / 0-)

                            It appears we are in exact agreement on the stove project, although we state it differently.

                            Myself, I am a very traditional cook.  And so are many others.  Look at the very limited uses the microwave has gotten-used by many people only to thaw things, pop corn, heat water, and heat pastry.  People like to cook like grandma cooked.  I do myself, and even though in other areas of endeavor, I totally adore new gadgets.

                            As to the impact of the project, it is difficult to calculate, and different assumption have led different studies to yield very different numbers.,

                            The NYT has had some very interesting articles about environmental problems in China.  The second installment is in today's paper, on their disappearing water.

                            The first installment, As China Roars, Pollution Reaches Deadly Extremes, ran on Aug. 27.

                            An internal, unpublicized report by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning in 2003 estimated that 300,000 people die each year from ambient air pollution, mostly of heart disease and lung cancer. An additional 110,000 deaths could be attributed to indoor air pollution caused by poorly ventilated coal and wood stoves or toxic fumes from shoddy construction materials, said a person involved in that study.

                            However, a different study by World Bank came up with very different numbers:

                            This spring, a World Bank study done with SEPA, the national environmental agency, concluded that outdoor air pollution was already causing 350,000 to 400,000 premature deaths a year. Indoor pollution contributed to the deaths of an additional 300,000 people, while 60,000 died from diarrhea, bladder and stomach cancer and other diseases that can be caused by water-borne pollution.

                            And a third study by WHO:

                            For example, the World Health Organization found that China suffered more deaths from water-related pollutants and fewer from bad air, but agreed with the World Bank that the total death toll had reached 750,000 a year

                            Obviously, if one accepted the second study, one would conclude that stoves were more important than China's coal burning.  One would reach the opposite conclusion if one accepted the first study.

                            And in the third study, one would be interested in cleaning up the water.

                            Fortunately, doing one does not keep China from doing the other two.

                            http://www.nytimes.com/...

                          •  The 1st is from (0+ / 0-)

                            "Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning"?
                            The Environmental Planning in china ? Not so good .
                            I would not put much weight on the "Chinese Academy"
                            until I was shown that they are not a bad joke .

                            If you read the reports from china
                            dead rivers , deadly smog , etc etc etc .
                            Aren't we lucky to be down wind / share a planet with china ?

                            http://english.people.com.cn/...

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 03:28:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, we got a free pass (0+ / 0-)

                            when we were going through that phase of our industrial development.  China is sort of a developed and undeveloped nation at the same time.

                            For one thing, although people usually get in a twist about it, the fact that the Chinese have limited the number of children they have has been a plus.  And they are currently doing new development with wind, solar & nuclear.  However, they are in real, real trouble with their water table and their rivers.  

                            And I've got to say that 3 things about the Chinese make me nervous:

                            1.  The growing size of their fleet of nuclear submarines
                            1.  The fact that the US owes them a TON of money
                            1.  The desperation that's going to happen when they run out of food due to the destruction of air, water, and land.  Desperate people do desperate things.

                            The 2 NYT articles were very interesting, I thought.

                          •  Label this snark (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LIsoundview

                            "The fact that the US owes them a TON of money"
                            A ton is an understatement .
                            I say we sell them texas and or florida .
                            If they buy texas and florida we give as a bonus,  detroit .

                            l'essentiel est invisible

                            by indycam on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:27:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  My question , (0+ / 0-)

                    "In a real world cost benefit analysis ,
                    what would you do first to reduce the amount of airborne pollution that 3rd worlders are exposed to daily ? "

                    your answer ,

                    "That would be the guinea worm project & malaria projects, etc, that  Bill Gates is involved with."

                    Your answer to airborne pollution is
                    guinea worm & malaria projects ?

                    l'essentiel est invisible

                    by indycam on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 05:18:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  "small minds " (0+ / 0-)

          Thats an insult .
          You are completely predictable .

          l'essentiel est invisible

          by indycam on Mon Sep 24, 2007 at 08:49:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Waaahh ... (1+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Plan9
            Hidden by:
            indycam

            "That's an insult."

            Oh really? Don't make me laugh.

            You troll-rated me (twice) simply because you didn't like what I had to say, and you couldn't think of anything substantial to say in return.

            That's not only an insult; that's an abuse of your TU status. I believe you'll find that I'm not the only person who thinks so.

            Those who must resort to troll rating to make their points -- because they cannot provide valid a counterargument, or any coherent argument whatsoever -- do not think big. In fact, they usually do very little thinking at all. Use your brain, not your finger. Talk, don't click. Then you might demonstrate that you are something other than a knee-jerk reactionary without a clue.

            Until then, I stand by what I said.

      •  I think you're missing the piont. (0+ / 0-)

        I'm talking about spending billions of dollars on things that can be built now. The new designs for nuclear reactors are available today. They are not concepts; they are fully realized designs.

        Yes, today they are designs.  In five years they might be plants (if our nuclear industry were "well-oiled", and if it could build FOIK as fast as others.)  In ten years they would be plants using average timetables for the American industry.  In fifteen years, they will be plants if we get a few bad breaks.

        So the apples-to-apples comparison is what we can build with renewables in ten or fifteen years.  And yes, that gives a large advantage to small, decentralized systems like windfarms or thin-film solar.  That's the advantage of such small, decentralized systems.

        BTW, think of the flying windfarms as next-gen helicopters.  The next-gen helicopters should be commercial in three years.  In five or ten years, there could be whole armadas of them churning out enormous amounts of power, all in less time than it would take to build a new nuke plant.

        Same story for thin film, and CSP.  Slightly less sexy story for various other silver BBs (tidal, wave-power, etc.)

        PS  Not really sure why you got a troll rating.  Perhaps it was for your subject heading, which might have been deemed to lower the level of dialog.  I certainly don't agree w/ your post, but (possibly excepting that) I can't find anything in there worth of a TR.

        •  Sorry, but I find your ideas (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LIsoundview, Plan9

          hopelessly naive.

          Wind, the most promising technology, installed 2,454 megawatts of capacity last year. Now, assuming that they are able to keep this level of growth up for the next decade (which I highly doubt), that's 24,540 MW of capacity, built in 10 years, right?

          I have already stated that the nuclear industry has increased its electricity production over the last 10 years (a time during which they built no new nuclear reactors) by 112,490 thousand MWh per year. Now, in order for the 24,540 MW of new wind capacity built over the next 10 years to equal that, these wind farms would have to produce electricity at a capacity factor of at least 52%.

          Sorry ... that ain't happening.

          Now, if the nuclear industry were to build new plants ... well ... they're going to leave wind in the dust.  Most likely anything else as well.

          Perhaps your wishes will come true and a new breakthrough will occur. Until then, you're just being naive.

          Thanks for the support on the troll rating, however. I won't dream of troll rating you, even though I disagree with you on a couple of points. ;-)

          •  It appears that (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Plan9, bryfry
            Hidden by:
            indycam

            indycam is the designated troll-rater of the day.  You may have noticed that antinuke troll raters seem to cycle through like that-one major one per diary.

          •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NRG Guy

            ..if we assume no breakthroughs.  That is, if we continue to talk about land-based wind (and polysilicon solar).

            And if we had to choose whether to spend ALL money on nuclear, or ALL money on a breakthrough, you might also be right.

            But that's not the choice we face.  We can spend all money on nukes, or we can divert a significant amount to make hybrid helicopters/wind turbines, thin film solar, etc.

            Thank goodness the market is choosing to fund R&D into thin film solar (and CSP).  I'm hoping it will also fund R&D into hybrid helicopters/wind farms as well.

            The market is betting on breakthroughs.  So would I.  Not with all my money, but a significant chunk of it.

            I can see the case for nuclear.  But I have never been able to see the case for ONLY nuclear, to the complete exclusion of everything else.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (165)
  • Community (66)
  • Baltimore (49)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Bernie Sanders (37)
  • Culture (32)
  • Law (25)
  • Elections (25)
  • Economy (23)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Education (22)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Racism (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Texas (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • 2016 (19)
  • Environment (19)
  • Politics (18)
  • Media (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site