Comments on: Compromised Energy http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/ Seattle's Only Scientist Sat, 12 May 2012 05:47:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Why It’s All Going to be Ok http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-327 Why It’s All Going to be Ok Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:06:21 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-327 [...] is just as I predicted, twice. You know what date had the peak price of the bubble? July 3rd, my birthday. I’d like [...] [...] is just as I predicted, twice. You know what date had the peak price of the bubble? July 3rd, my birthday. I’d like [...]

]]> By: Derby http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Derby Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:24:29 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-71 Exactly, Luke. Taxes on _all_ nonrenewable carbon fuels will use free market forces to encourage everyone everywhere to conserve carbon fuel without the smoke and mirrors of offsets. Exactly, Luke. Taxes on _all_ nonrenewable carbon fuels will use free market forces to encourage everyone everywhere to conserve carbon fuel without the smoke and mirrors of offsets.

]]> By: LukeB http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-70 LukeB Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:06:53 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-70 Great comments, IMHO the order of policy importance should be: * Conservation and taxation of wasteful practices (tax rebates for conservation, much higher fuel standards, etc etc) * Renewables * Nuclear Great comments, IMHO the order of policy importance should be:

* Conservation and taxation of wasteful practices (tax rebates for conservation, much higher fuel standards, etc etc)
* Renewables
* Nuclear

]]> By: Zach http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Zach Wed, 20 Feb 2008 15:41:50 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-69 I think that restricting births and gently decreasing human population is the only sane thing we can do in order to curb worldwide energy usage. I also think we need to reorganize our economic activity so that it isn't plane/car/semi-truck focused and revive our light, passenger, and cargo rail system. Trying to produce *more* energy to inject into our economy is akin to the junkie trying to find ever greater amounts of junk. Its a bad idea, but try telling that to the junkie. I think that restricting births and gently decreasing human population is the only sane thing we can do in order to curb worldwide energy usage. I also think we need to reorganize our economic activity so that it isn’t plane/car/semi-truck focused and revive our light, passenger, and cargo rail system.

Trying to produce *more* energy to inject into our economy is akin to the junkie trying to find ever greater amounts of junk. Its a bad idea, but try telling that to the junkie.

]]> By: Price floors? PRICE FLOORS? http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-68 Price floors? PRICE FLOORS? Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:44:35 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-68 suits them in a way that suits them; the redundant way suits them in a way that suits them; the redundant way

]]> By: Price floors? PRICE FLOORS? http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-67 Price floors? PRICE FLOORS? Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:42:53 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-67 people talk about regulation but only when it suits them in a way that suits them. On the one hand you want one form of government regulation, while coal wants another. I think the key here is to allow the industry to get fucked by new players like me. people talk about regulation but only when it suits them in a way that suits them.
On the one hand you want one form of government regulation, while coal wants another. I think the key here is to allow the industry to get fucked by new players like me.

]]> By: Jonathan Golob http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-66 Jonathan Golob Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:58:18 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-66 Ah, hydroelectic *isn't* as green as most fossil fuels as per a life cycle analysis. After accounting for: 1. The massive carbon release during the production, transportation and setting of the millions of tons of concrete. 2. The environmental damage to the waterways. 3. The massive carbon release and energy required to eventually remove the dam. among other hidden environmental costs, it ends up a middling from a holistic environmental perspective. Ditto for most present nuclear technologies. I'm at least open-minded when it comes to nuclear power, but the waste--including decommissioning the plant at th end of its life--is a pretty damn difficult problem. Conservation! Ah, hydroelectic *isn’t* as green as most fossil fuels as per a life cycle analysis.

After accounting for:
1. The massive carbon release during the production, transportation and setting of the millions of tons of concrete.

2. The environmental damage to the waterways.

3. The massive carbon release and energy required to eventually remove the dam.

among other hidden environmental costs, it ends up a middling from a holistic environmental perspective.

Ditto for most present nuclear technologies. I’m at least open-minded when it comes to nuclear power, but the waste–including decommissioning the plant at th end of its life–is a pretty damn difficult problem.

Conservation!

]]> By: Thomas Robey http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Thomas Robey Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:23:07 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-65 I share LukeB's chagrin about our failure to innovate cleaner nuclear options. It's easier for me to get behind solar, wind and geothermal energy than a source that relies so explicitly on pillaging and burning. I especially think that we should be focusing on local solutions to power (from the domicile on up to factories), and deemphasizing the power grid. One thing that everyone seems to forget about in clean energy is hydro! It never counts as green! Don't you remember when you were the last one picked? I sure do. Maybe that's why I stayed in school so long, so that I was the ONLY one left to be picked... Seriously though, why can't we let hydro play with all the other green kids? <a href="http://hope-for-pandora.blogspot.com/2008/02/alternative-energy.html" rel="nofollow">Here's my trackback.</a> I share LukeB’s chagrin about our failure to innovate cleaner nuclear options. It’s easier for me to get behind solar, wind and geothermal energy than a source that relies so explicitly on pillaging and burning. I especially think that we should be focusing on local solutions to power (from the domicile on up to factories), and deemphasizing the power grid.

One thing that everyone seems to forget about in clean energy is hydro! It never counts as green! Don’t you remember when you were the last one picked? I sure do. Maybe that’s why I stayed in school so long, so that I was the ONLY one left to be picked… Seriously though, why can’t we let hydro play with all the other green kids?

Here’s my trackback.

]]> By: LukeB http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-64 LukeB Wed, 20 Feb 2008 05:33:41 +0000 http://dearscience.org/2008/02/19/compromised-energy/#comment-64 The tech already exists: nuclear. Better tech is on the horizon: "energy amplifiers" that run on thorium. Too bad our general populace is too ignorant to see this, and our government to inept to implement it correctly. The tech already exists: nuclear. Better tech is on the horizon: “energy amplifiers” that run on thorium.

Too bad our general populace is too ignorant to see this, and our government to inept to implement it correctly.

]]>