The Energy Thread

the tortoise whisperer

the tortoises per her

I've (regrettably) seen videos of captive tortoises mating with rocks and shoes of every style. I doubt they expect much in the way of amenities for their mating sites.

Also, I think you should reconsider your state reptile, California. Its must be awkward having the other states' reptiles snickering behind your back.

If I may jump way back in the thread, I'd like to point out that LFTR molten-salt thorium reactors are completely awesome and everyone who cares about green energy should be pushing for them big-time. The science behind it is very solid and it's basically politics holding it back at this point.

My boss, who is an uber-nerd, has been spending his spare time trying to tell the canadian gov't about this stuff for at least a year. He was specifically told by some mid-level political functionary that any talk of new nuclear power was a political dead-end. Even more so now, I imagine...

The caution I have with the molten salt thorium breeder is with the molten salt. You may recall high-school chemistry hijinks with pure sodium and public toilets. I do, anyway. The same explosive reactions have occurred with sodium coolant at the Japanese Monju Nuclear Power Plant.

Ignore the above. Obv liquid floride is potentially very different from generic molten salt, which in nuclear circles usually means sodium...I'll research further.

so California's hydro power - does that come from dams or from waves?

It's gotta be dams. Tidal energy is still very much in the embryonic state.

yeah tidal power um they haven't quite worked that out yet

dams have pretty big environmental consequences iirc

not nuclear disaster huge obv but sayin

yeah tidal power um they haven't quite worked that out yet

"The first large-scale tidal power plant (the Rance Tidal Power Station) started operation in 1966."

??

let me just say there were some serious environmental and technical concerns recently when the City of SF entertained some proposals about putting giant turbines under the bay bridge

dams have pretty big environmental consequences iirc

yeah they do, but it's a lesser of three evils thing - compared to stuff that emits GHGs and nuclear waste/safety issues, dams are definitely preferable

they also destroy ecosystems

yeah well I'm not really sympathetic to people who complain about Hetch Hetchy either. small price to pay etc

I mean humanity destroys ecosystems. we build cities, etc. it's kinda what we do. you can attempt to manage it as best as possible, but let's not pretend like there's some entirely benign way to run human civilization.

Giant mirrors in the desert. It's proven and it works. Why isn't this being done NOW in the Chihuahua desert, the Sahara, Mexico, Gobi, etc? I don't remember the stat but it's something ridiculous like an area the size of Rhode Island filled with these things could store up enough electricity to power the entire world. I suspect the answer has to do with batteries and distribution but fuckin come on.

um that very prospect is discussed few posts up

lawsuits!

environmental impact studies!

tortoises!

Big oil!

Big coal, I meant

uuuuuuuuugh

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced yesterday an enormous expansion in coal mining that threatens to increase U.S. climate pollution by an amount equivalent to more than half of what the United States currently emits in a year.

In other words, despite his administration's rhetorical embrace of clean energy, Obama is effectively using modest wind and solar investments as cover for a broader embrace of dirty fuels. It's the same strategy BP, Chevron, and other major polluters use: tout modest environmental investments in multi-million dollar PR campaigns, while putting the real money into fossil fuel development.

jesus fuck

I'm sure the atmosphere will understand that it was a political move.

And once again, for this unprompted giveaway, Obama gets........????

"Maybe THIS time the republicans will love me!"

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt te first few times, but this is just psychotic

Fucking COME ON

I don't see how he gains from this at all, other than perhaps stabilizing energy prices?

probably has inside info about peak oil

Incremental coal will be exported to China via a new port being developed at Cowlitz County, Washington. The chief competition from cheap natural gas has made export markets more attractive for coal.

This of course means that even if the U.S. went on a carbon diet its global effect would be neutralized if someone else just emitted our carbon.

Obama was made aware of PO during his presidential campaign, McCain was aware during the late 90s, advisors to George W. were aware (though maybe not W himself). Every national politician remembers what happened to Carter and simply hopes it happens after their term. I expect unprecedented numbers not seeking reelection in 2014.

thinking about this makes me want to go on a Leaving Las Vegas downward spiral.

He's either ignorant or he cares more about getting reelected than the misery of 100s of millions of people. Either one makes voting for Obama in 2012 painful. So sad that th alternative (republican) will be so much worse, somehow. Good luck planet.

MIT unveils sweet new artificial leaf tech.

Obama sets insufficient goals, defines clean coal, nuclear, natural gas as "clean energy", and promotes an increase in domestic fossil fuel production

Booooooooooooo!

fact sheet here, which leads with a nice discussion about expanding oil and gas production.

I don't think this is all bad but it's a far cry from all good lol

would love to see some actual "clean coal" lol. bugs the shit out of me how people talk about it like it's a real, operative thing (and often giving short shrift to actual working renewable technologies in the process) rather than a pipe dream

a la "solar will never generate enough power to meet demannd - BUT HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT HOW AWESOME THIS HYPOTHETICAL THING CALLED CLEAN COAL IS?????"

No excitement over the artificial leaf?

is that the same thing that was written up in Discover? I was into it, but it hardly seemed ready-to-market or anything

I don't think this is all bad but it's a far cry from all good lol

The problem is that unless we rapidly shift to "all good", (and manage to convince future presidents to stay with the all good plan) we are fucked.

As usual, David Roberts is right:

The paucity of imagination shown by Obama's list is just dismally
depressing. It's telling that he says nothing of electric cars, rail
infrastructure, public transit, smart growth, congestion pricing, a gas
tax, bicycles, or simple conservation. He is choosing fare straight from
the barren cupboard of Beltway conventional wisdom, contenting himself
with the tepid "center" of a conversation dominated by the interests of
plutocrats.

Stupid iPhone formatting, sorry

would love to see some actual "clean coal" lol. bugs the shit out of me how people talk about it like it's a real, operative thing (and often giving short shrift to actual working renewable technologies in the process) rather than a pipe dream

I don't know too much about clean coal or carbon capture and sequestration, but I do know that, though they are a long way off, they're being considered very seriously by utilities and coal companies.

Obama's speech was pretty disappointing, but there were some highlights. For instance, he plainly said that oil was going to run out. Sure, he didn't say we were hitting peak production, but as far as a political speech goes, he stepped out front on some things. He did speak at length about electric cars and high-speed rail, as well. And I do appreciate him stressing the insignificance of off-shore drilling, as it relates to oil prices. I guess this is classic triangulation, trying to appease republicans. I don't know that it will work, but I think he's got a better plan than previous Presidents.

Regardless, all the progressive work is happening at the state and city level. I work in this field and have been impressed by the forward movement in cities around the country.

just throwing this out there to see what you all think. it really seems like the political strategy of the environmental movement for the last few decades - relying on the big name groups to make progress (sierra club, EDF, NRDC, etc) - has totally failed. i pretty much agree with 350.org's perspective:

Not for forty years has there been such a stretch of bad news for environmentalists in Washington.

Last month in the House, the newly empowered GOP majority voted down a resolution stating simply that global warming was real: they’ve apparently decided to go with their own versions of physics and chemistry.

This week in the Senate, the biggest environmental groups were reduced to a noble, bare-knuckles fight merely to keep the body from gutting the Clean Air Act, the proudest achievement of the green movement. The outcome is still unclear; even several prominent Democrats are trying to keep the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

And at the White House? The president who boasted that his election marked the moment when ‘the oceans begin to recede’ instead introduced an energy plan heavy on precisely the carbon fuels driving global warming. He focused on ‘energy independence,’ a theme underscored by his decision to open 750 million tons of Wyoming coal to new mining leases. That’s the equivalent of running 3,000 new power plants for a year.

i'm curious about what everyone here thinks about the likelihood of big green groups succeeding vs grassroots action. does one outweigh the other? are they both necessary? is one useless? are we all doooooooooooooomed

I think EDF, NRDC, and the big environmental groups have done solid work, but I don't how much of a real impact they make. I feel the same way about many of the grassroots efforts. They do a great job at rallying support from liberals and young people, but they aren't trusted in the business community and they don't actually do a good job at lobbying the government. I have serious issues with Shellenberger, Nordhaus and the Breakthrough Institute, but I agree with much of their Death of Environmentalism (and it's recent update). I don't think enviros should entirely abandon messaging about climate change, but they need to get smarter about where the opportunities are. People gravitate to the idea of energy independence and businesses are very inclined to embrace energy efficiency (if taught how to do it effectively). EDF has been trying to build up a stronger business-focused arm, and they've done a good job, but they'll never have the trust or large corporations.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that policy is necessary to really make this stuff happen. But it's not happening any time soon. Until all this tea party hysteria dies down, enviros should take a different angle. And grassroots organizations need to learn the industries they're trying to shift. Whenever I go to a "greendrinks" or some event like that, I'm amazed at how little the grassroots crowd knows. I don't pretend to be a genius, but it doesn't surprise me now that we are as far away from a real energy policy as ever. But I also think the Obama administration carries a bit of the blame as well.

enviros should take a different angle. along these lines, David Roberts had a recent piece that generated a fair amount of attention:

...So here's my proposal:

First, green groups abandon the pretense that they are nonpartisan education groups. It's a legacy model that makes no sense in current circumstances. The Republican Party has officially and irredeemably aligned itself against public health and a clean energy economy. That's not greens' fault -- it's part of a process of the parties ideologically clarifying that's been going on for decades -- but it is what it is. No sense pretending otherwise. That means shifting lots and lots of resources out of 501(c)3's and into 501(c)4's and PACs.

Then, green groups all contribute to a common electoral fund. Build up, say, $300 million or so. Be public and explicit about what the money is for: not ads, not canvassing, not clever websites, nothing except primarying the next Dem who f*cks with them on a big priority issue like EPA climate regs. It's just a big, loaded primary gun.

And then ... use it. Take somebody out. My personal suggestion would be the loathsome Joe Manchin. Or if that's too big a target to begin with, start smaller, with a few state attorneys general, mayors, even school board members. Collect some wins and work up the food chain.

To respond to a few predictable objections: Yes, there are some cases, perhaps even many, in which a primary challenge would weaken the Dem and allow a Republican challenger to win. So be it. Remember, the Tea Party sacrificed several winnable seats in the midterms (see: Christine O'Donnell). In return, they got an astounding degree of fealty from Republican lawmakers, who now live in terror of them. They have become the tail wagging the dog. It doesn't take many high-profile hit jobs for that lesson to sink in.

key to any discussion of global energy supply/demand in this century:

UN Population forecast bumped up to 10.1 billion by 2010, 9.3 billion by 2050