Skip to main content

View Diary: ECSTASY: Neofeudalism, pt.2: Up close & personal. (61 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  about that siege mentality. (3+ / 0-)

    That's another upcoming installment.  

    I have a name for it, which is highly politically incorrect but none the less accurate.  

    Warning:  bad language below.

    The Crazy Nigger Factor.  

    The have-too-muches are terrified of "crazy niggers" coming to take their stuff.  This is what's behind the racism, and the paranoia about crime.  

    Go here and read:

    The author is an influential quasi-neocon.  He basically wrote up the have-too-muches' worst nightmare and tied it together between Africa today and America tomorrow.  

    What he wrote is what they are terrified of.   And what they are attempting to protect themselves from.  And, as a result, it's also what they are producing right here.  

    •  fear of a slave rebellion is older than the USA (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ganymeade, G2geek, confitesprit

      that kaplan piece would be hilarious in its campy fear of a black planet were it not in as privileged a position as it is. really lays it out there, dunnit?

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Mon May 24, 2010 at 04:25:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep, it sure does, and interestingly... (3+ / 0-)

        .... his piece found some welcome on the left also, as it is predicated on the results of ecological overshoot and collapse.  

        What the left got from that is the need for sustainability.  What the right got from it is the need to keep the Crazy N-----s down.  

        So as you said, he really lays it out there.

        And people who engage in slavery damn well ought to be afraid of slave rebellions, just as people who engage in robbery as their livelihood ought to be afraid of shopkeepers with pistols behind the counter.  

    •  I thought it was interesting that in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      1994 the author of "The Coming Anarchy" clearly accepted the truthfulness of Global Climate Change.  If he tried to warn today's neocons about that danger, they would reject him with enthusiasm.

      Renewable energy brings national security.

      by Calamity Jean on Mon May 24, 2010 at 11:50:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  in @ 1984, when the first EPA report.... (0+ / 0-)

        .... on climate change came out, my first thoughts were:

        1.  This is happening so fast we're going to need nuclear power in the mix.
        1.  US midwest goes dry, major agricultural zones in the world shift upward into Canada and the northern central region of the (then) USSR.  Scary geopolitical implications.  

        Global security issues are a possible motivator for the neocons to get real about climate change.   Particularly considering that some of the risks/threats are getting serious attention from the military.  

        •  I hope you're right about this. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Global security issues are a possible motivator for the neocons to get real about climate change.   Particularly considering that some of the risks/threats are getting serious attention from the military.

          Considering that it's now ~25 years later do you still think we need/can use more nuclear power?  IMHO, starting from where we are now, new nuclear plants can't be completed in time to prevent dire consequences.  We need to start a crash program of building up wind and solar, because those are two things that might get built fast enough to ward off catastrophy.

          Renewable energy brings national security.

          by Calamity Jean on Tue May 25, 2010 at 02:07:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  all of the above. (0+ / 0-)

            All of the following assume that the permitting, paperwork, and financing can occur within a 1-year timeframe under emergency conditions intended to speed up the process.  (Otherwise 5 - 10 years, which is deadly.)  

            From experience in wind, the completion time for a 250 MW wind farm would be a minimum of three years, assuming that wind survey occurs during year 1, financing and government permitting occurs during year 2, and the build occurs during year 3.

            You need a full year of wind survey to determine how seasonal variations will affect output.  There's no shortcut on this one.  

            In reality it often takes as long as a nuclear plant, see also Cape Wind.

            For that reason, the ideal case is to build 2 - 3 gigawatts on one site or spread over a bunch of nearby sites, which will produce about 1 gigawatt of usable power.   This would make wind time-competitive with nuclear.  

            The construction logistics costs for a single large wind turbine are about the same as for hundreds: you still need a very large crane on the site, you need high-volume concrete production, and of course permitting to erect something that's about 300' tall.  That crane costs $5 million, which I know because I priced them out.  

            The best way to do onesies & twosies on agricultural land (farmers like this: income source, doesn't interfere with crops) is to get a bunch of farmers rounded up in an area to do it all at once (thus the crane sticks around to install all of them).  

            Utility-scale solar: I have no idea.

            Nuclear:  The actual build can take 5 - 6 years, add one year for permitting and call it 7 years.  That gets you a gigawatt of baseload power anywhere you want it, particularly to replace large coal plants in areas where there aren't sufficient wind or solar resources.   The concrete production needed for nuclear is similar to that for wind, but with much tighter quality control, which today is easily achieved.  The crane situation is somewhat different, and of course the trades & technical skills involved are more complex.

            Yes we need nuclear in the mix: there are places where solar & wind are insufficient, or where coal plants can be retrofitted easily with modular reactors.  Use the power sources that work for each area.  

            Rooftop solar is interesting because permitting is not an issue, and it can go up very quickly.  I would say that the solar industry in the US is worth about 2 gigawatts per year at most, which is the equivalent of two nuclear reactors per year.  

            Rooftop solar thermal is a no-brainer in most places because it's inexpensive even compared to photovoltaics.  Hard to quantify and mostly replaces natural gas, which is the "cleanest" of the fossil fuels.

            And of course, maximum conservation and efficiency.  Thermal insulation standards for new buildings should be federal law, and financial support available to insulate old buildings.  Detroit can produce high-mpg vehicles if they choose: the old Chevy Chevette and Geo Metro were good for 50 mpg at 65 mph on the freeway.  Buses can be put into service for instant public transit nearly anywhere, sized to the passenger demand on the routes.  

            The bottom line is, we are so tight for time at this point, that we have to get on this like building tanks & aircraft for WW2:  an emergency program to build all types of climate-clean power as quickly as possible within the limits of safe design & construction.  

            The biggest obstacle is NIMBYism, and NIMBYs should basically be told that the choice is to accept the project or have their electricity cut off.  That's hardly as harsh as what's going to happen to them if we don't.  

            We can do this if we try.  Think WW2 and Apollo.  

            •  Yeah, but... (0+ / 0-)

              We can do this if we try.  Think WW2 and Apollo.

              Getting the nation to try is the hard part.  

              I waiver between "We'll pull it off" and "We're screwed".

              Renewable energy brings national security.

              by Calamity Jean on Tue May 25, 2010 at 11:10:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site