Home › Forums › Open Discussion › West Seattle and Mercury
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 6, 2013 at 6:49 pm #783856
AnonymousInactiveand we still benefit from all the spin off technological advances due to the Apollo program today :-)
efficiency is an area that has improved significantly and needs to continue to improve. today’s appliances use far less energy than appliances that were made a decade ago. this is very good and needs to continue.
building/home construction today requires significantly improved efficiency. yes the upfront cost is more but the monthly energy bill is far less so in the long run the benefit exceeds the cost. and i believe that financing finally acknowledges energy efficiency factoring.
more needs to be done!
February 6, 2013 at 6:50 pm #783857
wakefloodParticipantAnd for the shortsighted folks who yell “Solyndra” anytime you raise the specter of gov’t investment in green technology, well, show me a large-scale change that required tons of technological R&D that batted a thousand? Or even .500?
Go ahead…I’ll wait.
You might not want to start with weapons development. You’ll find a hundred Solyndra’s there. But keep looking.
February 6, 2013 at 7:01 pm #783858
wakefloodParticipantWC – what do we do about the problems we have now?
It’s a good question. My response is that you do what you can do. And it starts with leadership. Political joined with private.
How many nascent companies with promising technologies could Obama marshall if he wanted to stand with them at his side during the SOTU address and had an audience of environmental groups give him a 5 minute standing O when he announced a big idea for change?
How many of those companies would see instant renewed interest from the billions of investment $ sitting dormant on the sidelines right now?
How many of those products would we start reading about as potential solutions every day in mainstream media? Further fueling the fire of R&D and momentum for change? I’m telling you, it’s just sitting there waiting for leadership.
And it could happen tomorrow, if he/we wanted it to.
And since the UK’s defense dept. and the U.N. have already gone on record saying climate change is THE BIGGEST threat to future security, we surely must have folks at the DOD who feel similarly and could be prodded to publicly support this type of change. I know they do behind closed doors.
I know many of the technologies aren’t ready for primetime but use what’s out there now at subsidized rates and build momentum.
February 6, 2013 at 7:03 pm #783859
wakefloodParticipantBut alas, we have a President who campaigned on “clean coal” in 2008. Ugh.
February 7, 2013 at 6:18 am #783860
AnonymousInactivethe coal i have seen is black and sooty
February 7, 2013 at 3:02 pm #783861
wakefloodParticipantWell, according to industry sources, they’ve got new, better coal. The black is now all bright and shiny and the soot is like, waaaay less sooty and stuff. Seriously. Waaaaay less sooty.
February 7, 2013 at 4:34 pm #783862
AnonymousInactivethe use of coal to generate power, even though it is much cleaner than in the past, is still dirty compared to the alternatives and is the worst option in my opinion.
improving energy efficiency is the obvious low hanging fruit.
nuclear power generates no emissions thus from an atmospheric view is a great option; the challenge is with waste disposal and yes safety concerns (that improved designs can keep very minimal).
natural gas that is far cleaner than coal; but is an energy that is easily distributed and can be used to power transportation.
wind, solar and thermal are also good sources that have a definite role but also have challenges.
February 7, 2013 at 4:44 pm #783863
wakefloodParticipantI was being factious, GR. Coal is killing the planet. There ain’t no such thing as clean coal.
Natural Gas is also very problematic. They just released a study showing that the methane release into the atmosphere is WAY higher than the industry claims. Imagine that? A polluting industry claiming they’re clean? Shocking!
And that’s on TOP of what they’re doing to water tables with fracking.
The bottom line – if you’re talking about fossil fuels, you’re a part of the problem, not the solution. Even as a transitional energy source. You’re trading one evil for another and I’m not sure which is evil-er. Is dying by asphyxiation better or worse than dying by poison?
February 7, 2013 at 4:56 pm #783864
AnonymousInactiveWF – yes I understood your comment on coal and agree with you.
natural gas is is no saint, but is better than coal.
energy conservation is clearly choice #1.
creating a stable base power resource is imperative; and right now nuclear power is the most viable option that I am aware of.
of course wind, solar and thermal will also be a part of the equation.
WF I am curious as to what option you believe is best? I agree fossil fuels need to go the way of the dinosaur, pardon the pun.
February 7, 2013 at 5:06 pm #783865
wakefloodParticipantWell, if you force me to NOT choose my option of an Apollo-level program for renewables, then, with a gun to my head, I choose nuclear as a partial solution along with heavy conservation and as pumped up as you can get with renewables as fast as you can. License every solar, wind, tidal plant you can get on the boards asap. Even if you’re subsidizing or they need to be replaced/upgraded in 10yrs. due to obsolescence.
You CAN make nuclear safer than the 1st/2nd gen plants still operating here but you can’t build another plant until you sort out waste storage. Yucca sounds like it ain’t gonna’ happen and if that’s true, I haven’t heard of a viable 2nd option. Wonder what France is doing with all their spent material??
It’s just a pity that we have to keep talking about 20yrs. from now as the time when we can make a big push for change. We’ve been talking about this issue in earnest since the 70’s and we have only been burning up faster instead of making change. The “environmental” generation forgot that many of their brethren sold out to greed and resisted change in exchange for $. Shame on all of us shortsighted fools.
February 7, 2013 at 5:39 pm #783866
AnonymousInactivewaste storage is a big challenge, Yucca from my limited knowledge is the best option. But I know the NIMBY attitude has created a big road block on this.
too bad President Carter could not press his energy policy more successfully.
licensing all solar, wind and tidal without due process would not be appropriate. i agree they are a very important part of the equation but these resource still need to be developed based on reasoned economics and be appropriately mitigated.
February 7, 2013 at 5:41 pm #783867
WorldCitizenParticipantStorage (for nuclear) isn’t the only issue. You will never build another nuclear facility in the United States. Can’t be done. No one wants it anywhere near them. The regulatory hurdles are far too high. It’s a total non-starter. It’s the same issue with refineries. We need more of them, *edit- and cleaner ones which are very possible* but another will not be built, and more are going to be closing in the relatively near future.
The problem is there’s an insatiable appetite for energy and no way to provide for it in a clean way right now. We could clean up the facilities, but have made it too expensive to do so. Also, in many cases, in order to clean up the current facilities, you have to apply for a permit to do so. These permits by default change the output levels of the facilities. When you do this, the public weighs in and there is a huge outcry to stop the perceived expansion of the facility in question. This leads to inaction and in effect is the public’s ignorances working against themselves. It’s a huge problem.
Look, fossil fuels need to go away and the quicker the better. I’m just saying there’s no way that’s going to happen any time soon, and as a society we lack the basic understanding and trust of the industries who supply them to elicit real immediate change for the greater good.
February 7, 2013 at 5:51 pm #783868
wakefloodParticipantOK, so what’s the reasoned economics behind massive subsidies for Big Oil?
And where’s the “due process” for fracking, and opening up massive tracts of shoreline to oil wells?
What, exactly, are we waiting for? Someone to tell us what the lesser of evils is by a specific percentage? Like that calculation wouldn’t be challenged any way it was figured? Mitigation comes down to $. Paying landowners, land swaps, etc. Why are we offering those options to fossil fuels more readily than renewables?? Oh yeah, they own Congress. So, tell me again, what you consider “due process” and what “reasoned economics” you need to see? Are you implying that the true, burdened costs are being used to calculate fossil fuel production and use?? What would any simple addition of a simple PORTION of that cost do to the equation?
I need to know more about this, “let’s not be bold” strategy. I mean, it’s worked so well so far, right?
February 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm #783869
AnonymousInactivewf – no argument regarding oil company subsidies, the lack of due process for fracking and shoreline oil wells.
the price of fuel, in particular gasoline should factor in environmental cost. the prevalence of cheap gas (even at $4 a gallon) is a big part of the problem and challenge. politically even tacking on a small increase in the use fee and people scream bloody murder. yet the use of gas is adversely effecting the planet.
europeans pay significantly more for fuel than we do in the US. personally i would support incrementally raising the use fee by say $0.10/year indefinitely. thus eventually pricing gasoline to a point of extinction via pricing. by doing it incrementally theoretically it gives people and the economy time to adjust.
February 7, 2013 at 6:18 pm #783870
WorldCitizenParticipantNot what I’m saying at al. I’m just telling you how it actually is. In my opinion we need the Apollo Program styled thinking. We need to be bold. However, we also need to be realistic in our approach to our current situation.
Here’s what I propose. Instead of having it as an “either or” situation, we need to address the current problems we have. Subsidies aren’t the problem, it’s the way they are being spent that is. The money should go to mandatory updating of all our major production facilities (refineries, pulp and paper, concrete, etc) to bring them to modern standards. This will make a MASSIVE difference in their impact on the environment. We also need to end all tax breaks to oil and natural gas facilities and divert that new found income to your R&D idea. We can implement the best ideas as the technology becomes viable for widespread use. Next, we need to stick that nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. I know this is basically directly screwing the fine people of Clark County, Nevada (what gets buried next to Vegas, stays next to Vegas), but the security issue alone is enough to make that hard choice a necessity. Solar panels should be put on every roof in america. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Yeah, this is a massive undertaking, but in my opinion, this is one step that can single handedly fundamentally change the security of this country for the better.
So the big catch to this is pretty obvious. We must be prepared to pay much higher prices at the pump, which in turn means higher prices for pretty much everything else as well. Which means in the short term, stifling economic growth. Which means a lot of people REALLY pissed off. Which means the political will to make something like this work doesn’t really exist in a democracy tied to monetary gains. Which means we need to take the big money out of politics. Which means election reform from the curent officials currently benefiting form the system….
You get the idea.
February 7, 2013 at 6:21 pm #783871
wakefloodParticipantSorry for the screed but there’s a bottom line to this. There is no magic bullet here. Cold Fusion isn’t going to run my dishwasher next week. But for godsakes we make all these economic concessions to fossil fuels simply because they own gov’t.
If we don’t have the will to develop renewables with some vigor, we’re doomed. Look at every major scientific advancement that went from theory to practice. Manhattan Project. Apollo Program. Both those took leaps of faith, will and TONS of $!! Why isn’t saving the planet worthy enough for that level of effort? It is for some countries? Did you know China is busy buying up the rights to 21st century high tech, limited availability minerals needed for solar panels and all those other new technologies?? Guess who’s going to be naming the market price for those in 5 or 10 yrs.??
I’m just baffled by the reluctance to be bold. It’s not like I don’t get that the economics aren’t great today. What would someone charge you to build a Saturn 5 rocket in 1960, when Von Braun conceived it??
February 7, 2013 at 6:26 pm #783872
wakefloodParticipantWe were writing at the same time. :-) You’re dead on. This stuff is all tied together and the political will isn’t there. I’m trying to get $ out of politics any way I can. (Publicly Financed Elections anyone? Anyone??)
And yes, Yucca has to happen. At least you put all your poison in one place.
So, we agree on much. Thanks for the discussion. :-)
Now that we’ve solved the country’s energy problem, I’m off to chores!
February 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm #783873
AnonymousInactiveand maybe go for a walk, the sun is out :-)
February 7, 2013 at 6:48 pm #783874
wakefloodParticipantIs THAT what that is??
February 8, 2013 at 2:14 am #783875
AnonymousInactiveyes the yellow thing, it was a nice change.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.