Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 41952
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/04/02 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/2     

2006/2/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41952 Activity:high
2/21    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
        Bush to support renewable energy. He's not such a bad
        guy afterall                            -environmentalist
        \_ are you dumb or what? he uses this small gesture to disguise
           the fact that he is pushing for 1. nuclear power 2. provide
           all sort of tax break / environmental regulation waivers to
           coal/oil industry.
           \_ why don't you just admit that you hate Republicans you
              hippie king
              \_ i just don't hate people who can careless about environment
                 and then blaming China and India for everything.
           \_ nukular power is good -environmentalist
              \_ where are you going dump the waste?  we will soon running
                 out of Indian Reservations to dump them :p
                 \_ dump it into the ocean
                 \_ better dumped somewhere and contained than pumped into the
                    atmosphere like our other current energy sources.
                    \_ it can not be contained.  that is the problem.
                        those concrete canister last about 50-60 years
                        before it start to leak... and the half life of
                        those materials is... 10,000 years?
                        There are ways to cut down emissions.  But it
                        requires CONSERVATION... If you are not willing to
                        change your lavish life style, then, you are not
                        an environmentalist.
                        \_ You understand what halflife means right?  Not the
                           video game.  Something with a long half life is
                           going to emit very little radiation.  If the
                           half life is long enough, the radiation emitted is
                           so low it will be less than the background
                           radiation we're born into and live in from the
                           natural environment.  I'm not afraid of something
                           with a 10,000 year halflife.  It's the short stuff
                           that will poison and kill you.  You need to
                           understand what you're talking about before going
                           off about what is safe and not.  Feel free to dump
                           the 10,000 year stuff in my back yard.
                \_ Bury it on the moon!  Space:1999 10 years late!
           \_ What's wrong with pushing for nuclear power?  Nuclear power
              is better than most of the other alternatives; its main
              problem is Cold War-era paranoia.
              \_ waste.  There is no safe way to dump the waste and right now
                 it's being stored right at the Nuclear Power Plants
                 everywhere.  When people talk about nuclear energy being
                 "cheaper,"  I often wonder if they taken account of the
                 Yaka Mountain facilities and the cost of transporting
                 waste to that location.
                 \_ What is this Yaka of which you speak?  ;-)  Anyway, the
                    planet is a big place.  There are lots of safe places,
                    they're just hard/expensive to get to.
                    \_ due to long half-life, almost nowhere is safe except
                       earth's core.
                       \_ Due to long half life, almost anywhere is safe.  But
                          since we know it isn't safe it therefore must have
                          a short halflife.
                          Anything unsafe has a short half life by definition.
                          The earth's core... indeed!
                 \_ 1. If people weren't so paranoid about weaponization,
                       we could use breeder reactors which would be much less
                       wasteful.
                    2. Other conventional sources of power have waste too.
              \- i think the problem assessing nuclear power costs is the
                 widely differing views on how small the probability of
                 "something really bad" happening is ... since the govt
                 rather than private insurance will kick in if something
                 goes drastically wrong. you may be able to detemine say
                 coal fired power plan will cost $x in enviro damange and
                 health costs and increased mortality at emission level y
                 which costs $z. but in the case of nuclear power there are
                 some reasonably bounded costs for say security and waste
                 disposal but part of the cost is the expectation value of
                 p(really_bad_event) * cost(RBE) ...  and i suspect there
                 isnt a lot of agreement of p(RPE), especially if it is
                 isnt a lot of agreement of p(RBE), especially if it is
                 affect by human motivation and not just accident
                 probability. OK TNX.
              \_ Uranium supplies are not infinite.  Breeder/Thorium reactors
                 are pipe dreams and no commercial versions exist.
                 Reprocessing fuel means lots of plutonium floating around.
                 Also the fallout (pun intended) from one going boom is really
                 really bad, unlike coal fired plants which have a very bad,
                 but fixed and relatively well known environmental impact.
2025/04/02 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
4/2     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2014/1/24-2/5 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54765 Activity:nil
1/24    "Jimmy Carter's 1977 Unpleasant Energy Talk, No Longer Unpleasant"
        link:www.csua.org/u/128q (http://www.linkedin.com
	...
2012/12/7-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54550 Activity:nil
12/7    Even oil exporters like UAE and Saudi Arabia are embracing solar
        energy: http://www.csua.org/u/ylq
        We are so behind.
	...
2012/6/22-7/20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54420 Activity:nil
6/22    "Study: The U.S. could be powered by 80% green energy in 2050"
        http://www.csua.org/u/wtz  (news.yahoo.com)
        \_ How many Republicans does it take to make green energy?
           -150,000,000! Ding ding ding!
           \_ Because having control of the White House and both houses of
              Congress wasn't enough (ie, the do nothing and blame the
	...
2012/6/26-7/20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54422 Activity:nil
6/26    WW2 brought us antibiotics, syringe, production capacity,
        excessive petroleum, radar, television, atomic energy,
        rocketry (HEIL VON BRAUN), synthetic rubber, microwave,
        computers (GAY TURING), jets.
        What did the Iraq war bring us?
        \_ HMMWV -> Hummer H1 the gas guzzler.
	...
2012/1/12-3/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54287 Activity:nil
1/12    "The Case for a 21-Hour Work Week"
        http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-case-for-a-21-hour-work-week.html
        Yeah, let's beat the Europeans on laziness.  If their purpose really
        is to save the planet, why not re-direct the "excess" consumption
        towards environmental causes?  I don't see how traveling, for example,
        in the extra free time is not a form of consumption.
	...
Cache (4415 bytes)
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush
President Bush, on a three-state trip to promote his energy policy, said Tuesday that a budgeting mix-up was the reason 32 workers at one of the nation's premier renewable energy labs were laid off and then reinstated just before his visit. Click Here Bush addressed the funding problem as soon as he began speaking here at the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is developing the sort of renewable energy technologies the president is promoting. "Sometimes, decisions made as the result of the appropriations process, the money may not end up where it was supposed to have gone," Bush said. "My message to those who work here is we want you to know how important your work is. We appreciate what you're doing and we expect you to keep doing it, and we want to help you keep doing it." Two weeks ago, the lab workers, including eight researchers, were laid off at the lab because of a $28 million budget shortfall. Samuel Bodman , $5 million was transferred back to the lab to get the workers back on the job. Lab officials are ecstatic about getting the positions back, although they say the remaining $23 million shortfall has forced delays in research subcontracted to universities and companies. Still, it was an untimely issue for the president, who flew to Colorado to push the energy initiatives he announced in his State of the Union address. The president has proposed a 22 percent increase in funding for clean-energy technology research at the Energy Department. He wants to change the way the nation fuels its vehicles and powers homes and businesses by focusing on nuclear, solar and wind power as well as better batteries to power hybrid-electric autos and hydrogen-fueled cars. "The idea is to have an automobile, say, that can drive 40 miles on the battery ... and if you're living in a big city, that's probably all you're going to need for that day's driving," Bush said. "And then you can get home and plug your car right into the outlet in your house. Critics of the administration's energy policies say Bush's proposals are modest, and that the president is promoting renewable energy because polls show his job approval numbers are being weighed down by American's concern about high utility bills and the price of gasoline. Breaking America's addiction to foreign oil is not a modest goal and will require more than a modest commitment of effort and funds, he says. "As the premier renewable energy lab, it makes no sense to begin an effort to achieve America's energy independence with cuts to the lab that will likely lead the way," said Drew Nannis, a spokesman for Salazar. Eben Burnham-Snyder, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said this year's energy efficiency and renewable energy portion of the budget is slightly smaller than that in the last year of the previous administration. When inflation is factored in, it amounts to a decrease of more than $130 million, he said. "This is a series of photo-ops entirely driven by polls that tell the president that he isn't doing enough on energy," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust. "The president is talking a good game, but his budget doesn't back it up." Before holding a panel discussion with lab, business and other officials, Bush toured a "mini brewery" where the lab makes ethanol -- a replacement for gasoline -- from the stalks and other nonfood parts of corn, said George Douglas, media relations manager at the lab. In the late 1980s and 1990s, research was done to see if it was worthwhile to remove sugar, used in making ethanol, from the non-kernel parts of the corn, which farmers typically plow under. During a panel discussion, Dan Arvizu, director of the lab, explained in scientific terms how the process is done. Bush interrupted to translate for the layman: "I think what he's saying is that one of these days we're going to take wood chips, put them through a factory, and there's going to be fuel you can put in your car." On Monday, Bush stopped in Milwaukee at Johnson Controls, which is developing advanced batteries for hybrid-electric autos. Outside Detroit, Bush toured United Solar Ovonic, a maker of flexible film products that convert sunlight into energy. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.