NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh my god, it just keeps getting funnier! you just can't make this shit up!


First, GW talks with such great conviction about America's "Addiction to Oil" and the need to move away from it.

The very next day, (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=466636) he sends out his people to say: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Kidding!!!"


What will day 3 bring?

Layoffs to researches in renewable energy!!! (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02energy.html?hp&ex=1138942800&en=884f904a8b1146b8&ei=5094&partner=homepage)


The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.




Just curious, but is that a new record for time taken to completely eviscerate one's own policy objectives?

The techincal arguments are over. There is no feasible renewable replacement in the pipeline. All this 'renewable energy' rhetoric is just so much talk, and serves as a hinderence because it makes the transition from a oil based economy even more tardy.

Frankly, I would fire the lot of them. They are all con-men anyway.

OH MY GOD!

You mean he LIED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Well this is not surprising as who would believe an oilman and an energy producing vice-president saying we need to get away from oil imports.

I new it was a lie when remembering Cheney saying wind, solar, etc. were bogus.....

Alternative energy is just too costly right now for the small amount of energy it produces. Personally, wind and solar will never be effective enough to use on a national level. The most hopeful looking frontier of alternative energy is that of hydrogen fuel cells.

There was a recent Scientific American article on how safe a reactor based on EBR-II technology developed by Argonne National Labs would be.

Not that they haven't run such a reactor before - it's impervious to operator error - or even operator malice. Proven in a deliberate test just before the first Clinton administration.

It also uses a different fuel cycle - it even burns depleted uranium, and other radioactive waste. It has the potential to sharply reduce the total amount of radioactive waste we'll have to bury. It also poisons the fuel so it is completely unusable in nuclear weapons.

Guess what the first act for energy policy of the Clinton Administration was? Shut down and DISMANTLE EBR-II. Fire its staff immediately.

No, can't have anything that smacks of safe, clean nuclear power that has the potential for an essentially unlimited fuel supply compared to current nuclear technology.

Alternative energy is just too costly right now for the small amount of energy it produces. Personally, wind and solar will never be effective enough to use on a national level. The most hopeful looking frontier of alternative energy is that of hydrogen fuel cells.
I disagree - tidal power would be 100% reliable (we'll have two tides a day for the next few billions years) and doesn't depend on any hypothetical technology - simple mechanincal systems will suffice.

OH MY GOD!

You mean he LIED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
I thought you had him figured out by now... oh wait, you ARE being sarcastic! :D

I disagree - tidal power would be 100% reliable (we'll have two tides a day for the next few billions years) and doesn't depend on any hypothetical technology - simple mechanincal systems will suffice.
I haven't heard much about that. How does it work?

Alternative energy is just too costly right now for the small amount of energy it produces. Personally, wind and solar will never be effective enough to use on a national level. The most hopeful looking frontier of alternative energy is that of hydrogen fuel cells.
And they say the left are defeatist.

In capitalism, there's a saying: "You have to spend money to make money." It's called R&D (research and development) and it's when you spend money on stuff that doesn't bring back a profit right away but that you're willing to bet will if you develop them. And considering the vat of shit oil dependency has gotten us into today, I think it would be worth the expense, actually.

And they say the left are defeatist.

In capitalism, there's a saying: "You have to spend money to make money." It's called R&D (research and development) and it's when you spend money on stuff that doesn't bring back a profit right away but that you're willing to bet will if you develop them. And considering the vat of shit oil dependency has gotten us into today, I think it would be worth the expense, actually.
I'm not ruling out the possibility of effective wind or solar power or any other alternative energy source in the future. I also support the funding of research and development into those sources. However, when looking at the near future (lets say 10-15 years) hydrogen fuel cells are the most viable option.

My statement has nothing to do with Bush's actions. As far as that goes, I would have to see the extent of the cuts, and the location(s) to which the money is going.

And they say the left are defeatist.

In capitalism, there's a saying: "You have to spend money to make money." It's called R&D (research and development) and it's when you spend money on stuff that doesn't bring back a profit right away but that you're willing to bet will if you develop them. And considering the vat of shit oil dependency has gotten us into today, I think it would be worth the expense, actually.

Didn't you get the memo? R&D is considered to be a bad investment by more then a few corp execs. You are basically gambling.

It is far better to buy somebody elses R&D.

I have hear that argument from execs in different industries. Mind you it's only a few but it makes me wonder when it's different industries saying the same thing. Maybe I am lucky. ;)

My statement has nothing to do with Bush's actions. As far as that goes, I would have to see the extent of the cuts, and the location(s) to which the money is going.

Hmmmm?

My guess would be 4 letters and it starts with "I"

Probably. Still not too bad a move though. The money will be put to better use there then researching wind and biomass. Theres only so much you can do with either of them. Sure does look bad though...very hypocritical.

There was a recent Scientific American article on how safe a reactor based on EBR-II technology developed by Argonne National Labs would be.

Not that they haven't run such a reactor before - it's impervious to operator error - or even operator malice. Proven in a deliberate test just before the first Clinton administration.

It also uses a different fuel cycle - it even burns depleted uranium, and other radioactive waste. It has the potential to sharply reduce the total amount of radioactive waste we'll have to bury. It also poisons the fuel so it is completely unusable in nuclear weapons.

Guess what the first act for energy policy of the Clinton Administration was? Shut down and DISMANTLE EBR-II. Fire its staff immediately.

No, can't have anything that smacks of safe, clean nuclear power that has the potential for an essentially unlimited fuel supply compared to current nuclear technology.


http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2000/nn10744.htm

DOE CRITICIZED FOR FAILURE TO SHUT DOWN IDAHO REACTOR
WASHINGTON, DC, August 8, 2000 (ENS) - In reaction to a critical report by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Inspector General, 37 public interest organizations are condemning the DOE’s failure to close the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR II) in Idaho. In 1994, Congress directed EBR II closed "as soon as possible," but that directive has not been carried out. The Inspector General found that just $55 million of the $444 million that Congress has allocated for termination activities went toward shutting down the reactor. The Congressional directive, supported by the Clinton administration, was to end the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (ALMR) program and close EBR II. EBR II is a sodium cooled reactor that "breeds" more plutonium than it consumes.

In an August 7 letter to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, the public interest organizations echoed the sharp criticism of the DOE’s own Inspector General. Included in the groups signing the letter were the Snake River Alliance, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Nuclear Control Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Federation of American Scientists, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, signed the organizations’ letter and explained that "It is U.S. policy not to undertake or encourage reprocessing because it increases the danger of diversion of plutonium to weapons use." Tom Clements, executive director of the Nuclear Control Institute, said, "The U.S. wisely rejected plutonium breeder reactors and associated reprocessing of spent fuel, but the DOE has failed to ensure that both Congressional directive and U.S. non-proliferation policy are followed and that EBR II be shut down."



So, it runs on plutonium, generates even MORE plutonium, and was deemed to be shut down due to non-proliferation policies - which rather shoots your notion in the ass that it is antithetical to weapons production.

Oh yeah, and it was STILL RUNNING when GW took over, which rather shoots down your notion that all the researchers were fired.

Oh yeah, and it was a Congressional initiative - not one brought forward by Clinton. He just signed off on it. Don't you guys always use the "hey, it's Congress that hasa all the power - not the PResident" to excuse things like budgetary deficits for Bush?


In other words - after a bit of fact checking on your assertions, it becomes apparent that you might want to do some fact checking of your own on your pants.

Methinks they is aflame....

Didn't you get the memo? R&D is considered to be a bad investment by more then a few corp execs. You are basically gambling.

It is far better to buy somebody elses R&D.

I have hear that argument from execs in different industries. Mind you it's only a few but it makes me wonder when it's different industries saying the same thing. Maybe I am lucky. ;)
You're right. It's the stupidest attitude to take if a person claims to be out to make money and build industries. For instance, right now, solar is not practical or viable for large scale use or commercial profit. So, hypothetically, American firms choose to do nothing with it. Meanwhile, some other country -- like maybe China or India or whatever, decides to fund or subsidize such development , and whoops, what do you know -- a whole new energy source is available in a decade or two, and the US is dependent on foreign powers to give us access to it, just like oil. Plus not one American citizen will be the richer for it -- if you don't count those so-called American corporations that actually don't do business in America and aren't even based in this country anymore (I'm looking at you, GE, Exxon-Mobil, etc.).

Oh, and by the way, when it comes to things like energy, pharmaceuticals, food production, etc., it's not lots of different firms/industries saying the same thing. They're all owned by just a few multinational corporations, so it really is just the same, few, cheap, short-sighted bastards screwing things up for everyone.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/news2000/nn10744.htm

So, it runs on plutonium, generates even MORE plutonium, and was deemed to be shut down due to non-proliferation policies - which rather shoots your notion in the ass that it is antithetical to weapons production.

Poisoned plutonium - which is essentially useless to weapons production. You really should read the Scientific American article.

If you do, you'll find that your pants are already cinders.

Here you go.

Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste
Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated
By William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford
Despite long-standing public concern about the safety of nuclear energy, more and more people are realizing that it may be the most environmentally friendly way to generate large amounts of electricity. Several nations, including Brazil, China, Egypt, Finland, India, Japan, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam, are building or planning nuclear plants. But this global trend has not as yet extended to the U.S., where work on the last such facility began some 30 years ago.

If developed sensibly, nuclear power could be truly sustainable and essentially inexhaustible and could operate without contributing to climate change. In particular, a relatively new form of nuclear technology could overcome the principal drawbacks of current methods--;namely, worries about reactor accidents, the potential for diversion of nuclear fuel into highly destructive weapons, the management of dangerous, long-lived radioactive waste, and the depletion of global reserves of economically available uranium. This nuclear fuel cycle would combine two innovations: pyrometallurgical processing (a high-temperature method of recycling reactor waste into fuel) and advanced fast-neutron reactors capable of burning that fuel. With this approach, the radioactivity from the generated waste could drop to safe levels in a few hundred years, thereby eliminating the need to segregate waste for tens of thousands of years....continued at Scientific American Digital

Poisoned plutonium - which is essentially useless to weapons production. You really should read the Scientific American article.

If you do, you'll find that your pants are already cinders.
I hate nuclear power because the potential for disaster is so high. As far as I'm concerned, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are already two accidents too many. But France doesn't glow in the night, so if I have to have it to get out of the oil trap, I guess I can cope for a while.

But don't you think it's foolish to put all our eggs in one basket, as it were? That's just what we did with oil -- made our entire society dependent on just one fuel, and look where it's gotten us. I say, if nuclear is ready to step up to the plate now, then okay, but I still want to see more money for development of non-polluting energy sources and ways to reduce energy usage.

But if we do go nuclear, then I insist on a rule requiring public speakers to pronounce it properly.

NU-CLE-AR.

I hate nuclear power because the potential for disaster is so high. As far as I'm concerned, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are already two accidents too many. But France doesn't glow in the night, so if I have to have it to get out of the oil trap, I guess I can cope for a while.

But don't you think it's foolish to put all our eggs in one basket, as it were? That's just what we did with oil -- made our entire society dependent on just one fuel, and look where it's gotten us. I say, if nuclear is ready to step up to the plate now, then okay, but I still want to see more money for development of non-polluting energy sources and ways to reduce energy usage.

But if we do go nuclear, then I insist on a rule requiring public speakers to pronounce it properly. NU-CLE-AR.


If it's a nuclear plant that is immune to worker idiocy, I'm for it.

If it's a nuclear plant that will actually eliminate nuclear waste, I'm for it.

If it's a nuclear plant that can burn fuel 100 times more efficiently per unit of ore, I'm for it.

Yes, we can't put all our eggs in one basket.

But short of orbital solar power satellites that beam microwaves to rectenna farms on the surface of the Earth in kilometer-wide multi-gigawatt beams, solar and wave and thermal tap and wind and other alternative methods don't produce enough current to drive a modern industrial society.

The main hurdle to overcome is energy storage and portability. It's hard to beat chemical fuels for their efficiency in that regard. And if we all start driving electric cars, the demand for electricity will double or triple overnight - there isn't enough production today to keep up with it.

We're talking about huge amounts of current - far more than you'll ever get from a wind or wave farm.

I see great hope in magnetized target fusion (MTF) which is being researched in the US. There's great odds that this will be the first commercial fusion method, and will result in multi-gigawatt reactors that are far smaller than the French or Japanese approaches (tokamak).

Those nuke plant operators are going to be waiting for some $$$ now.
It suits the US to help them - less oil required and more Plutonium for blowing other people up.

Poisoned plutonium - which is essentially useless to weapons production. You really should read the Scientific American article.

If you do, you'll find that your pants are already cinders.


The article indicates that while the US plant was designed to use poisoned plutonium, the technology itself is not constrained in this manner. The other issue, as the Japanese discovered in a rather nasty accident at the Monju plant, is that the cooling material used in these plants (Sodium) is some of the nastiest stuff going. The resulting fire and damage from caustic reactions still has that plant shut down, and it will have taken 12 years to rebuild it if it re-opens in '08 as expected. And under bombardment this coolant produces Sodium-24, a HIGHLY radioactive substance - although, as noted, with a nice short half-life of about 15 hours.

So a coolant leak in one of these reactors may not cause a meltdown, but it MAY cause a cloud of caustic, radioactive gas that will ignite at the touch of a raindrop.


When it comes to nuclear power, safety is a relative thing.


As is the applicability of this technology to weapons-grade plutonium generation.


Hey, if they could come up with a safe system - I'd back it. And EBR-II is as close as they've got so far. But the notion that it cannot be used for nefarious purposes and is completely safe is highly missleading.

The article indicates that while the US plant was designed to use poisoned plutonium, the technology itself is not constrained in this manner. The other issue, as the Japanese discovered in a rather nasty accident at the Monju plant, is that the cooling material used in these plants (Sodium) is some of the nastiest stuff going. The resulting fire and damage from caustic reactions still has that plant shut down, and it will have taken 12 years to rebuild it if it re-opens in '08 as expected. And under bombardment this coolant produces Sodium-24, a HIGHLY radioactive substance - although, as noted, with a nice short half-life of about 15 hours.

So a coolant leak in one of these reactors may not cause a meltdown, but it MAY cause a cloud of caustic, radioactive gas that will ignite at the touch of a raindrop.


When it comes to nuclear power, safety is a relative thing.


As is the applicability of this technology to weapons-grade plutonium generation.


Hey, if they could come up with a safe system - I'd back it. And EBR-II is as close as they've got so far. But the notion that it cannot be used for nefarious purposes and is completely safe is highly missleading.


I still think it's a great idea, until we get magnetized target fusion.

But I find that if you are using the fuel cycle described in the article, you can't do the nefarious thing. You would have to be using a different fuel cycle to get unpoisoned plutonium.

Fuel cycles are not easily substituted.

[1.] If it's a nuclear plant that is immune to worker idiocy, I'm for it.

If it's a nuclear plant that will actually eliminate nuclear waste, I'm for it.

If it's a nuclear plant that can burn fuel 100 times more efficiently per unit of ore, I'm for it.

Yes, we can't put all our eggs in one basket.

[1.] But short of orbital solar power satellites that beam microwaves to rectenna farms on the surface of the Earth in kilometer-wide multi-gigawatt beams, solar and wave and thermal tap and wind and other alternative methods don't produce enough current to drive a modern industrial society.

The main hurdle to overcome is energy storage and portability. It's hard to beat chemical fuels for their efficiency in that regard. And if we all start driving electric cars, the demand for electricity will double or triple overnight - there isn't enough production today to keep up with it.

We're talking about huge amounts of current - far more than you'll ever get from a wind or wave farm.

I see great hope in magnetized target fusion (MTF) which is being researched in the US. There's great odds that this will be the first commercial fusion method, and will result in multi-gigawatt reactors that are far smaller than the French or Japanese approaches (tokamak).
1. Impossible. Murphy's law: "Anything that can go wrong, will." A corollary to Murphy's law: "Any system can be made foolproof, but no system can be made damned-fool-proof." Remember the Titanic.

2. Not necessary. Even just equipping buildings with self-contained, solar and passive heating and cooling systems, will significantly reduce fuel oil usage. Tax breaks to developers and property owners to encourage this would be a good start. Likewise with incentives to encourage even more purchase of fuel efficient cars. The fact is we consume/waste so much fuel that even if we just reduce currently demand we will be making a significant change in our circumstances. We don't need to wait for the alternatives to be in place. Plus, the more we reduce usage now, the easier it will be to put alternative systems in place. They will have a smaller hole to fill.

Also, if energy production is broken up among multiple fuels/power sources, then there should be little future need for large public grids or networks. There is no reason why every building can't be heating and cooling self-sufficient. There is no reason why more small devices can't run on solar cells or other self-contained energy systems. The future is wireless. We should be working towards machines that don't need to be plugged into a central power source. If we take this road, and if we first lower our demand with more efficient usage, we won't have to wait for the space odyssey to happen.

Alternative energy is just too costly right now for the small amount of energy it produces. Personally, wind and solar will never be effective enough to use on a national level. The most hopeful looking frontier of alternative energy is that of hydrogen fuel cells.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Do you really believe that he will ignore all of his buddies in the oil Industry to make a engine that runs on water? How will they make a profit! If Cars don't need oil anymore then they'll lose business, you really think Bush would do that to the people who own him?

But short of orbital solar power satellites that beam microwaves to rectenna farms on the surface of the Earth in kilometer-wide multi-gigawatt beams,

What's wrong with that? It's the way we'll have to go eventually anyway - between the Sun, the kinetic energy of the gas giants, and the reserves of helium-3, all the energy is in space, and we'll eventually be living and building and making money there, so we might as well divert some of that boundless power to the huddling masses back on Earth.