Ever hear of methane hydrate?
Fracking has been attacked as an environmental menace to underground water supplies, and may eventually be greatly restricted. But it has also unleashed so much petroleum in North America that the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based consortium of energy-consuming nations, predicted in November that by 2035, the United States will become “all but self-sufficient in net terms.” If the Chikyu researchers are successful, methane hydrate could have similar effects in Japan. And not just in Japan: China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Norway are looking to unlock these crystal cages, as are Canada and the United States.
The article goes on to discuss the arguments between those who think we’ll run out of these resources and those who think we won’t, and those who think the more new ones we find the more we’ll ignore whatever it is we should be doing to limit AGW (a position which in turn depends on the belief that climate change is human-induced, a discussion we’ve had enough times before that I’ll skip it for now).
Here are some of the possibilities for methane hydrate:
Estimates of the global supply of methane hydrate range from the equivalent of 100 times more than America’s current annual energy consumption to 3 million times more. A tiny fraction””1 percent or less””is buried in permafrost around the Arctic Circle, mostly in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. The rest is beneath the waves, a reservoir so huge that some scientists believe sudden releases of undersea methane eons ago set off abrupt, catastrophic changes in climate. Humankind cannot tap into the bulk of these deep, vast deposits by any known means. But even a small proportion of a very big number is a very big number.
The article is long, complex, and technical. I have no idea whether it is correct, however; I just don’t have the technical expertise. But one thing of note is that it makes clear that a lot of environmentalists would rather we not find these new sources of energy. They seem to have the notion that if we finally run out of all non-renewable energy sources (a development they seem to be aching for) we’ll be forced to use wonderful things like solar power. But of course, if solar were a reliable, effective, and inexpensive way to generate power the entire country would be filled with solar panels already.
No, it’s not just our love affair with things like oil and gas and fracking that makes us ignore the wonders of solar power, it’s that solar power just won’t do the job. But:
For years, environmentalists have hoped that the imminent exhaustion of oil will, in effect, force us to undergo this virtuous transition; given a choice between no power and solar power, even the most shortsighted person would choose the latter. That hope seems likely to be denied. Cheap, abundant petroleum threw sand in the gears of solar power in the 1980s and stands ready to do it again. Plentiful natural gas, a geopolitical and economic boon, is a climatological shackle. To Vaclav Smil, the University of Manitoba environmental scientist, the notion that we can move so fast is naive, even preposterous. “Energy transitions are always slow,” he told me by e-mail. Modern energy infrastructures, assembled over decades, cannot be revamped overnight. Worse still, in his view, there is little public appetite for beginning the process, or even appreciating the magnitude of what lies ahead. “The world has been running into fossil fuels, not away from them.”
There is also little question in my mind that a certain segment of the environmental community—although I have no idea whether Smil is among them—would dearly love for this dilemma to cause us to ratchet down our energy use in a major way, and commence freezing in the winter, broiling in the summer, going to bed by candlelight, and walking everywhere.
ratchet down our energy use in a major way, and commence freezing in the winter, broiling in the summer, going to bed by candlelight, and walking everywhere
That would be a feature, not a bug, to the environmental community.
For anyonwe who hasn’t read Michael Chricton’s 2003 lecture, “Environmentalism as Religion”, I heartily recommend it.
It’s really quite simple: When the gods are angry sacrifices must be made. And the gods are always angry….
Oogah-Boogah.
There will be a breakthrough in some sort of energy technology someday. There may be a development of new form of engine that uses something other than gasoline. It will not be the result of some government beaurocrat setting in an office in some buliding named for a deseased politician.
Plentiful, reasonably priced energy supplies are the mother’s milk of modern societies. Coal is very plentiful here, in Canada, Australia, Russia, and other places. It is the cheapest form of fossil fuel. However, it’s difficult to clean up the emissions (not just CO2) from burning it. Leaving aside the debate about CO2 and AGW, natural gas in its many forms is much cleaner burning and is therefore a more desirable, reasonably priced source of fossil energy.
Anyone who wants to continue to have central heat, air conditioning, electricity on demand, an automobile, a computer, fresh food, etc., etc., is cheering for more natural gas in its many forms. The Luddite Greens thirst to return to a simpler time when it required much more human energy to wrest a meager living from the ground.
Maybe a demonstration of such a “simpler” place could be set up on a South Pacific island like Samoa. There, we could have a demonstration of a solar and wind power driven society. It could be populated by Greens who “know” how wonderful such a life would be. Even if the solar panels and wind mills were furnished at no cost, the people would be forced to return to 19th century living. They would have some electricity for lights and communications. But no transportation fuel, and only manual labor to till the earth and build shelter. Yes, the living would be simple. I aver that not too many would want to remain, if given an opportunity to escape to more modern lands.
There’s never any understanding by these people that the energy to make solar panels and all that other wonderful green stuff has to come from somewhere.
The claim that methane will cause some green house catastrophe worse than CO2 is total bunk. Without getting technical, the effects of water vapor overwhelm it. I do agree that you don’t want to be in an unventilated room with lots of this stuff in the air and light a match
This is a great subject. But the only “issue” is accepting the idea that man is causing “global” “climate change”. At this time, there is a tremendous amount of data refuting the claim, not to mention falsified data which was used to support it.
The “science” of climate change will one day go down in history as an example of what happens when science becomes politicized. To believe in climate change, is to exercise faith, in the same way a person exercises faith in their respective religious beliefs.
Are we running out of oil or is oil abiotic?
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/45838/
Fusion?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm
Fracking, fusion, oil, natural gas: all these are worrisome to the crowd which wants only 100 million people to inhabit the earth. If there’s an apocalyptic crowd, they’re it. But hey, here’s a bonus: If the energy/environmental apocalypse does happen, at least this time we advanced to the heights of gay marriage, which, come to think of it, makes sense for a zero growth world.
“Human beings are going to starve, be mired in poverty, and run out of resources…and we’re going to ensure it happens!” -Environmentalists
Totally OT, but there was a previous post about Presidential Libraries. I had the chance to visit GHWB’s library here in College Station- it was great! Beautiful grounds and building. It feels very much like a museum, but without any sort of imperial feeling. Anyway, I highly recommend.
GHWB picked College Station because he served with many Aggies in the military and came to love them and their school/town. He otherwise had no personal connection to the area. Pretty cool.
“fossil energy.”
There could never have been enough dead dinosaurs or foliage to produce the amount of “fossil energy” we are discovering on a regular basis.
sharpie,
The enviroMarxists’ push for Zero Population Growth in Western-lifestyle societies is only making the world safe for Islamic conquest. As for the compatibility of Islam with the idea of Zero Population Growth, it is, well, zero. But he would do wrong who expected Marxists to think about the consequences of their actions.
THe Hell they say. I’ll chop down trees.
An offshoot of these nuts is the animal rights people. Last night on German TV there was a 1 1/2 hour talkshow about how unhappy animals are in zoos. Someone is proposing releasing the bears into the wild. It does make me wonder whether the world might not be a bit saner if these people were planting their own wheat without the assistance of tractors, fertilizers, and GM seeds. At least they wouldn’t have time to drive me nuts.
You wonder where you can go? You know.
Where might one go where individual freedom is guaranteed along with prosperity. Hmmmm. Hmmmm.
Some place that is developing energy and technology. Some place that is a leader in agriculture as well. Some place that has a positive population growth. Some place with a future.
Hmmmm.
“The Luddite Greens thirst to return to a simpler time when it required much more human energy to wrest a meager living from the ground.” (J.J. Formerly Jimmy J. @ 12:05)
and yet they think that in returning to these “simpler” times no more human energy will be required than today. That’s because these ignoramuses have never lifted a pick, shovel or hoe in their life, much less had their evening meal depend upon any success at tilling the soil.
We don’t need plentiful power because there will always be a place to plug in our laptops and recharge our iPhones. Hot summer nights? My office building is already air conditioned what do I care.
The only environmentalist I have any real respect for is Ed Begly, Jr. I don’t agree with him on most issues, but he walks the walk even though he doesn’t have to, unlike the greenies who flit about in private planes or SUVs to decry everyone else’s carbon footprint.
Vaclav Smil is a geographer who actually understands technology and human society. He is a good source. See, for example, “Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate” (AEI Press, 2010.)
J.J., I believe NG is now cheaper then coal.
We have a huge amount of oil, coal, and NG. There is also the option of reprossesing nuke plants, which Carter banned but that ban can be overturned (in theory at least).
The “modern” romantization of the state of nature seems to me to have been stimulated by Henri Rousseau (French, 1844-1910) and this is temporarily congruent with the development and rise of Progressivism, which may not be a coincidence.
See “The Sleeping Gypsy”; you’ll recognize it.
Don,
And what about thorium charged nuclear reactors? My understanding is that radioactive thorium is just as efficient as uranium for power generation, it can’t be weaponized and that its half life is something like 150 years, not the tens of thousands of years for other radioactive fuels.
Don Carlos,
I fear it is not just romanticized nature. This plays into the stereotypical myths of “the noble savage” and “the Bohemian artist” as well. In fact I believe that the thrust is to romanticize anything that is culturally non-western; it’s Progressive “self-loathing” emerging in other guises.
So much time and money wasted on enviroMarxist fantasies–wind and solar can’t hope to deliver modern society’s power demands, even at their best–when it should all be expended on making nuclear fusion work.
Fusion power is not only the most competitive (the closest approximation to free energy as we could attain), it’s also a lot safer, because the reaction needs everything working properly to take place–no chance of a runaway catastrophe like Chernobyl with a nuclear fusion reactor.
T,
“In fact I believe that the thrust is to romanticize anything that is culturally non-western”
Hence, their support of Islamic terrorists everywhere for being “freedom fighters” against “Western imperialism.” And their double standard of decrying native Western opposition to Islamic colonization as “racism.”
With each increase in my awareness of what makes the Marxist Left tick, my hatred for them has only intensified. I truly hope I’ll get to see Marxism criminalized as treason in my lifetime.
Most greenies have jobs (if they are employed) that produce nothing. They are in entertainment, the professions, academia or politics. Someone else does the agriculture, mining, fishing, manufacturing and timbering. People who actually produce something appreciate the value of cheap energy.
My guess is that the dramatic increase in the number and prevalence of all these self-righteous “environmentalists” can largely be attributed to our society’s lengthening distance from our agrarian heritage, the land, the realities of meat and food production, the use of muscle power, and the common, necessary use of things like wood and coal for heat.
Our Western capitalist society–featuring, among many other things, cheap power, improved seed and plant varieties, mechanized farming and irrigation, central heat and air conditioning, easy food refrigeration and long term storage, hot and cold running water, safe, drinkable water and sewage treatment, massive increases in the quality and availability of medical care, mobility, and wealth–has been so successful that it has enabled two or three or more generations, now, to escape what was the lot of almost every person; the onerous, unremitting, exhausting, and all too often dangerous toil necessary to provide just the minimums of food, clothing, shelter, and heat.
Knowing virtually nothing, really, from experience, of this daily, down in the dirt, 24/7, chancy struggle to survive, and the human toll such an existence took in terms of bad health, crippling injuries, generally high death rates, infant deaths, early death and decreased longevity, generalized misery and greatly limited options, they can romanticize it. Romanticize, too, the deer and other animals that ate our ancestor’s crops and pushed them closer to starvation, chronic ill health, or death, and the bears, wolves, and other predators that attacked, maimed, and likely killed and ate many of our pioneer ancestors.
It appears that many, perhaps most of these environmentalists are also Lefties, and–if they were honest with themselves and with us–would admit that such “environmentalism” increases their chances of “seizing the means of production,” and being in a position to gain control and dictatorial power over the economy, government, and over the everyday conduct of every citizen. Such seizure of wealth and power was, and is what the whole “global warming” and the associated menu of proposed draconian, economic and regulatory “fixes” was all about
Put in place such drastic controls on our capitalist economy and our society and such noble, self-sacrificing, working only for the public good environmentalists, being the “experts” in this subject, would profit greatly in the control and wealth departments.
So, for environmentalists it’s a twofer; a threefer, actually, if you count the self-satisfaction from moral preening.
Wolla Dalbo,
“It appears that many, perhaps most of these environmentalists are also Lefties,…”
I like Lord Monckton’s observation the best: That greens are people who are too yellow to admit they’re red. He calls it the traffic-light reality of environmentalism.
As to the former, it’s worth noting that the first infant in decades died of whooping cough last week; a testament to his/her parents’ refusal to allow vaccination.
As to the latter, I have long referred to this syndrome as the “Disney-fication” of animal life. For some people it’s hard to believe, but Thumper, Flower and Bambi just don’t play nicely together as they galavant through the pristine woods.
Wolla,
There is a museum/research center called Lejre in Denmark where they study how people actually lived in the Stone Age and Iron Age. Family can spend seversl weeks there in the summer and eat and work as the people did then. I remember seeing one of the iron age huts with a big stone in the center where the fire was built (no chimney) and the beds along the wall cushioned by straw (I can imagine the little critter that probably shared the beds. Out side there were stones used to grind grain for bread, but the staff told us that people probably didn’t eat much bread because it took too long to do the grinding. Instead, the put the grain and water in a pot on the fire stone inside, and essentially ate oatmeal everyday.
I bet the environmentalists would just love this lifestyle.
The problem is that oil is mostly talked about as a means to generate power or fill the fuel tanks of our motor vehicles. Our reliance on oil goes far beyond this.
Plastic isn’t harvested from the Indonesian Plastic Tree. Many medicines are derived from that Old Debil Oil… We have too many “low Information Voters” that don’t understand this.
Years ago I spent 8 months working in Brazil. I’ve also spent a lot of time in Africa and Asia. I was not staying in some fancy tourist hotel in Rio but was out in the country. The poverty was appalling and pervasive. The environmentalist would be begging for mercy if they were forced to live like the small town citizen in Brazil. The taxis there were horse drawn carriages and I got around on a moped. Anybody who wants people living in poverty so they can feel good about themselves is a misanthropist.
Natural gas is a just as good raw material for organic chemistry as oil. All kinds of plastics and synthetic compounds can be made from it, and in many cases at lower cost.
But still the most of our demand for fossil fuels is energy production, and here the most powerful restriction is conservatism of three-phase alternative current technology invented by Tesla. It is so perfect that no significant improvement of it was proposed for 80 years now, and I can not imagine what is left here to improve. And this technology is fully compatible with hydro, coal, gas and nuclear power, but is absolutely non-compatible with wind and solar power. The latter two are fit only for off-grid use, which makes them marginal for economy in any future scenario.
I live in PA, and fracking is getting very big in parts of Pennsylvania. They are saying Pennsylvania alone could be a new Saudi Arabia. Who knows, but it is certain they are out there drilling and building. The problems seem definitely solvable and manageable.
There are no doubt pros and cons but one thing is certain: The Universities are already settled on the matter: Fracking is Evil. It will devastate the landscape and make new Robber Barons to exploit and enslave the poor.
They are as certain as that the Oceans will swamp the entire East Coast 10 years ago….
Wait.
The Liberals are fascinating to watch on this one. You can see the propaganda, the emotionalism, the lies, and the truly brilliant brainwashing of the young on this one. An entire generation of the college aged is sure fracking is impossibly wicked and destructive.
On the positive side, there should be lots of jobs for these numb skulls down the road, and that may help them to think independently.
It is perhaps redundant to point out that barter-based capitalism, which allowed specialization, made ALL human development possible. No longer did the all-subsistence man have to grow food and fix shoes. He bartered a grain he had concentrated on learning how to grow (=higher yields) and paid for his shoe repairs with grain to another who had given up farming and only fixed shoes. Win-win.
I expect most posters here already know that, but am compelled to point it out.
Capitalism in the long term is the greatest force for human progress that ever was…until the regulators (priests, kings, whatever) came along. They only provided regulation, for which embryonic capitalism paid them, with what became known as contributions, tithes and taxes.
Thorium 232 has a half life of nearly 14 billion years, the half life of other unstable thorium isotopes can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/c56v6cn. Thorium salt reactors are (or at least should be) an important energy resource. These reactors should number in the hundreds across the USA. Unfortunately, the mere whisper of radioactive conjures images of mutant ants.
The hardcore ‘greens’ want to live in the stone age. Should they get their wish 90+% of them would not survive 10 days.
Folks… Don’t get conned by the advertising…
ALL ‘Thorium’ reactors are Uranium233 reactors.
They are ALL designed to be Breeder Reactors — such that the start-up charge converts more thorium to uranium — which is what fissions — than the burn-up.
Molten salts reactors, like fusion reactors and electric cars are always only a generation into the future.
The reality is that every last scheme uses fluorides of U and Th. As a direct consequence of atomic physics, super energetic Fluorine ions are set loose with each fission.
They are a true universal solvent: they ALWAYS destroy the containment vessel. There is no work-around possible.
Both the USSR and USA spent large trying to square this circle forty and fifty years ago. By the late 70’s the verdict was in. No scheme can get around hyper-energetic fluorine ions.
So, the so called Thorium Reactor can never become an engineering success.
Radioactivity rates, per se, are a totally irrelevant side issue… the very discussion of which betrays ignorance of the real design problem.
Thorium to Uranium conversion produces U233 — the actual critter that fissions. Thorium doesn’t release any (fission) energy at all.
U233 is superior to U235 — the Little Boy explosive. It also offers a route to chemical separation — from thorium — IF the thorium batch is otherwise uranium free.
Thusly, U233 would have the best properties vs U235 or Pu239. Making it the last thing that the planet needs commercialized at this time.
Thorium reactors are freeways to proliferation.
Methane hydrate is stable in deep oceanic conditions: cold and high pressure; really, really, high pressure.
Introducing heat — by whatever form — could flip the hydrate back into water and methane.
However, in the deep ocean, spot heating is frustrated by the fantastic thermal conductivity of sea water. It only works in laboratory conditions.
Since fracking will provide enough methane to suffice for two centuries, solving methane hydrate issues is not a personal priority.
Japan’ merely needs to turn her atomic plants back on — after having redressed their failure modes.
Until this is done, Japan will be in eclipse.
As WWII showed, the Japanese can stay stupid — collectively — far longer than Westerners can imagine.
This attribute should be kept in mind when contemplating the crazed policy antics of the PLA — and their Kim Project.
In general, oriental societies are, “not for turning.”
China, in particular, has shown this tick for 2,500 years.
Even smart phones are unlikely to make a difference.
If Obama is an intelligent politician, then the matter of fracking shows that intelligence where he has played both sides pretty damn well. He had to win Ohio, so fracking was good for Ohioans, but meanwhile he uses the EPA and Dept. of the Interior for his nasty work.
If some of the theories I have heard are correct, this stuff is at least partially renewable as well. It is thought that some very long time ago, this stuff exploded under the oceans, causing catastrophic climactic changes. I’m not swearing to any of the theories, but it is plausible. Might as well try to use it to possibly prevent (though at risk of causing) such an event again?
We humans sure like playing with fire. No matter how long we have had it, it seems. Heh.
One problem with ratcheting down energy use in a major way is that you can’t produce enough food to feed humanity unless you burn oil. Swear off oil and people will begin to die. Of course, that may be seen as a long-term benefit to enviros.
blert -I don’t understand your statement “So, the so called Thorium Reactor can never become an engineering success”.
Alvin Weinberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Weinberg
designed an MSR at Oak Ridge and it operated successfully from 1965 to 1969. There have been various forms of thorium reactors producing electricity since the 60s. India and Germany have variations of heavy water reactors using thorium and produce each over 300MW; I believe there were similar ones in the US producing electricity for 20 + years.
Norway is operating a high pressure heavy water reactor now: http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/
China is building a molten salt reactor, and planning 25. There are numerous other projects worldwide with thorium reactors. Molten salt reactors, have been built, so I’m not understanding what you meant. There are some drawbacks, but I don’t believe the engineering challenges are out of reach, and neither do a lot of scientists and governments who are investing millions. This isn’t like fusion; it’s been done and it works; it needs to be perfected and improved.
On the weapons side, it’s my understanding you can only produce Pu from throrium if you surround it with Uranium and the Uranium absorbs the neutrons, but I may be wrong. That makes it more difficult to build a high yield weapon, assuming you’ve got Uranium to start with. I read it’s possible to make a gun type low yield weapon from U233, but not thorium in it’s pure state. But I’m not an expert by any means.
Maybe another misconception on my part is that it cannot by itself sustain a fission reaction, so it is safer in that regard, and can’t melt down in the same sense that a uranium or plutonium reactor can, while the nuclear waste is much less, and less harmful than uranium.
Norway and the USA posess some of the largest deposits worldswide, and it has been reported that the Department of Energy is collaborating with China on liquid flouride reactor technology. China is investing a lot and working with Russia, the USA, Canada, and Europe and expect to have one on line in 2015. I don’t think we should dismiss MSR reactors using thorium, because the engineering can’t be solved. I’m betting it will be solved and we should at least invest some research money in this, at leaset as much as we do in windmills and wave generators, which are hardly 21st century technology.
Don says, “J.J., I believe NG is now cheaper then coal.”
Right you are. Here’s a cite from 02/2011: “Changes in environmental regulations that favor use of natural gas over coal as feedstock for electricity generation facilities, coupled with a spike in coal prices, have caused natural gas to trade below the “coal floor” for more than a year. The coal floor is the price at which electrical utilities shut down coal plants and increase use of natural gas fired power plants.”
The whole thing is here: http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/bill-powers/natural-gas-vs-oil-and-coal
Look at the high level of discourse on this blog. No cursing and calling someone a vile name because they don’t agree with your position.
I learned a lot from the Thorium discussion. But then again most of us who frequent this site are not “Low Information Voters”
I apppreciate the info on thorium reactors. I admit to not doing research on this and this is the first time I have encountered any of these arguments. Obviously I am not a scientist or an engineer so this will cause me to look more critically into the thorium issue
southpaw…
Contrary to the Wiki… my negative views stem from the technical literature published to explain why both the USSR and USA scuppered their molten salt reactor programs.
ONLY in the specialist literature did the insiders come clean — to their peers — and drop the ‘sales act’ — and admit that during the vast bulk of the operating time EVERYTHING was geared towards finding economically viable materials that could form the basis of a design to edged out the Westinghouse and GE schemes.
I found it an eye-opener. The negatives were NEVER previously kicked out into the open — for the obvious reason that they’d kill Congressional funding — these were money pits — and because their own reputation was on the line to find solutions — their job, as it were.
AFTER sweeping through the entire periodic table the conclusion was that as elegant as the big bath idea was — it was like making a reactor out of one BIG fuel pellet. The whole dang thang needed to be scrapped out within nine months at the outside.
The reason is due to the entirely abnormal chemistry of ‘hot’ fluorine ions. (‘hot’ oxygen is no help, either) The term ‘hot’ fluorine is a craft expression of physical chemists. It specifically refers to independent atoms (ions) that are so loaded with atomic recoil energy (before the fission event they’d been chemically bound to uranium) that they have 100,000 times the binding energy of a chemical bond.
Translated into layman’s speak: just ONE of these beasties can break 100,000 conventional bonds by kinetic impact.
In all other atomic schemes, this destructive recoil is absorbed by pellet walls. Pellets that are subsequently ejected after months of abuse. With this scheme, the primary energy stopper is expended right along with the fuel.
With the molten salt scheme, every thing’s looking great — until you get to the reactor’s bath wall. It just gets pulverized until it can’t hold back the heavy brew.
The ‘hot’ fluorine is far more destructive than you can imagine. It’s incompatible with all metals, concrete and all refractory ceramics. It blows their lattices apart. It renders them into utter dust. Photos exist in the open literature.
The one big bath solution just does not work.
The heavy water scheme (Norway) should work. It’s just a variation on the CANDU scheme — the route to atomic proliferation chosen by Pakistan, India, et. al. Without the Canadians solving the Nazi solution, half the atomic powers wouldn’t be.
(The CANDU scheme was the original Nazi hope; hence all of the intrigue to stop Norwegian heavy water exports to Germany.)
Climate change isn’t in reference to the planet or its weather. Its reference is really about the mindset metamorphosis of live and let live liberals into totalitarian control freaks over the last 40 years.
We live in the same unpredictable and unforgiving world we always have. The difference is the now prevalent mindset that finds this situation unacceptable and in need of smart people’s “help”.
Mining for methane hydrates is not technically possible now, and never will be economically viable in forseeable future. Better to bet on breeder reactors technology.
This recent development seems rather encouraging:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150551-the-500mw-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-safe-half-the-price-of-light-water-and-shipped-to-order
The other main issue with the environmentalists preferred energy sources (i.e. wind and solar), which they would rather not discuss, is how to get the power from where the energy is generated to where it is needed. There are numerous places around the world where there is enough sunlight year-round for solar panels or enough wind power for moderately sustainable energy generation. However, ALL of these tend to be in the absolute middle of nowhere (i.e. deserts and wide-open plains). The power needs to get from there to the cities where it is actually used. Building the transmission lines causes the enviro-weenies to get up in arms yet again because we regular humans may impact the ecosystem of some random plant or animal that may or may not be “endangered” according to their definition.
Case in point: Large areas of the central valley region in California are essentially fallow and barren because irrigation was halted to “protect the delta smelt”. A tiny fish that was in no danger whatsoever of becoming extinct. And now food prices have risen substantially because a once fertile area of the country has now become a wasteland due to environmentalist feel-goodism. Compare this situation to what happened in Zimbabwe when Robert Mugabe took over (different circumstances, but the results are quite similar as Rhodesia was once the breadbasket of Africa). Or compare it to the Ukraine, which was also once the breadbasket of Europe and now is a net importer of wheat. It’s madness!
Sergey…
EVERY one of those arguments is a retread.
The facts that I have detailed NEVER appear in the popular press.
They’re real dream killers.
The experts had PLENTY of money to play with during their day. Funding was never the issue — and ALL things atomic were funded back in the day.
All of the optimistic fluff comes from what amounts to the SALES DEPARTMENT.
In the piece above, they still haven’t actually solved the engineering either. They’re exactly where they were in 1968, fresh ink, notwithstanding.
All I can say, is keep an eye on Taylor Wilson!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5HL1BEC024g
}}}} For anyonwe who hasn’t read Michael Chricton’s 2003 lecture, “Environmentalism as Religion”, I heartily recommend it.
(mildly OT):
Indeed, he had two others that were equally interesting —
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century
Both are strongly recommended reading for anyone who thinks they can trust The Greens OR The Government to be right or even vaguely competent.
}}} Its reference is really about the mindset metamorphosis of live and let live liberals into totalitarian control freaks over the last 40 years.
SteveH, don’t fool yourself. They were ALWAYS control freaks. They just didn’t like the idea that OTHERS could tell them what to do, so they promoted the “live and let live” meme to claim their right to be whatever THEY wanted in defiance of convention.
Don’t believe for a moment that they did not ALWAYS want to tell others to follow THEIR diktat.
It’s hand-in-hand with their BS hypocrisy over racism while being the biggest white racists outside of white supremacist groups. At least the latter is honest.
Truman recognized the sort:
Eight Days With Harry Truman
Almost the whole of the boomers are “professional” liberals.
The Leftist Alliance for evil and an anti-human utopia needs to control the energy to obtain an unbeatable strategic edge.
All else will fall into line based upon who gets the resources.