http://www.bnet.com/5799-14033-0.html?type=18 Blog Recent Discussion Activity http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002523/pge-smart-meter-case-is-just-the-beginning/#18933_91831 You're right. I was referring to the plaintiff's lawyers. Fixed, <br>thanks. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:50:24 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002523/pge-smart-meter-case-is-just-the-beginning/#18933_91831 2009-11-21T01:50:24Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91791 I have long regarded James Lovelock as a brilliant scientist. And I've heard his rant on nuclear as the only solution to curbing climate change. I was very surprised at his idea about this...and I think that while in one sense his argument has some merrit it only adds another risk to the one posed by climate change. for society. People need to read Amory Lovins, Soft Energy Paths again. We need to rememember that one time enthusiastic proponents of nuclear energy, (ie Dr. Bill Fyfe of the University of Western Ontario) eventually experienced enough about the pitfals, corruption, government and industry whitewashing of the nuclear problems (public expense, contamination etc) to become the biggest opponents of nuclear energy. I hope the public will open their eyes. Unfortunately though I have little faith left that humanity will apply common sense, logic or intelligence to improve its plight. Corporations on the other hand will go to great lenghts to keep these things from humanity. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:10:31 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91791 2009-11-20T20:10:31Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002523/pge-smart-meter-case-is-just-the-beginning/#18933_91763 The article incorrectly refers to the plaintiffs as "prosecutors" <br>however this is a class action lawsuit by private individuals, not <br>a state action. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:10:04 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002523/pge-smart-meter-case-is-just-the-beginning/#18933_91763 2009-11-20T19:10:04Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91721 I'm a big fan of renewables, Bill, but I also believe that climate change is real, and I wouldn't care to bet the farm on solar, wind et al scaling robustly enough to quickly replace coal.<br><br>On the matter of reasoned opposition -- I just finished up a year of living in Berkeley, California, a city that has plunked a big sign right at its entrance reading "Nuclear-free zone". I hope the folks there aren't the opposition you refer to; raw emotion there was in plenty, but reason seemed to be in short supply. Yes, there are safety concerns to address, but with one extreme, likely non-repeatable exception (Chernobyl), none of the doom-mongering of the 1960s has come true. And I hate to drag this dead horse out, but as has been correctly pointed out many times, the coal generation we settled on has proved infinitely more of a health hazard than nuclear ever did.<br><br>In the meantime, we need energy. Citigroup (and others) are probably right about the costs of nuclear today -- although it's a painful fact that a large slice of those costs are inherited from the anti-nuclear fear movement. But should we give up on research and new ideas? Really? Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:36:04 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91721 2009-11-20T15:36:04Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002504/week-in-oil-gas-punting-in-copenhagen-and-gulf-of-mexico-leases-abridged/#18917_91711 I'm hijacking your article here a bit --- my aplogies as it is a very good summary of many things, all tucked into a small space.<br><br>The Copenhagen story has many, many intersting facets. There are two new ones worth seeing.<br><br>The first is an interesting perspective from der Speigel, in which this startling revelation is made in the very first paragraph: "Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years". That is, it will startle you if you've only listened to AGW alarmism, not if you've been watching the data since '98.<br><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html</a><br><br>The other, far more fascinating development concerns the hack of the Hadley Climate Research Unit's servers. All of you CO2-driven AGW skeptics will remember that Hadley has been a holdout in sharing data and metadata for much of their research. It appears that the whole Freedom of Information issue has been resolved by an enterprising hacker, who has released hundreds of Mb of data and, more interestingly, e-mails and other files. Amongst the curious correspondence are tidbits like Prof. Jones reporting: "I?ve just completed Mike?s Nature trick of adding in the real temps<br>to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith?s to hide the decline." Fun!<br><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/" target="_blank">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/</a><br><br>Whilst many of you might regard Anthony Watts's site with some disdain (and I will assent to anyone's insistence it is not AGW-friendly), in the comments you will find links to the actual FTP servers where the HadCRU data may be found and you can decide for yourself whether this has been a centerpiece of tainted science or not. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:17:07 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002504/week-in-oil-gas-punting-in-copenhagen-and-gulf-of-mexico-leases-abridged/#18917_91711 2009-11-20T15:17:07Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91709 Fascinating that you cite James Lovelock and Lindsey Graham as representing a sort of across-the-spectrum consensus for nuclear power when, in fact, there is broad, deep and exceedingly well-informed and well-reasoned opposition to nuclear power across the world. You have massive problems remaining with nuclear: the threat of sabotage to plants, the risks in exacerbating proliferation, the waste, plus the real dangers in operation. See, for instance, the thorough analysis that the Union of Concerned Scientists does on this. And, oh yes, there are the costs. Those leftist, tree-hugging hippies at Citigroup just released a report: "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEU27102.pdf">New Nuclear ? The Economics Say No</a><br>." <br><br>I talk about nuclear at my <a target="_blank" href="http://climatechange.foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/nuclear-power/">blog on climate change</a><br> for the Foreign Policy Association. At the end of the day, it's a distraction and a drain on resources infinitely better spent on renewables, energy efficiency, the smart grid, distributed generation - a world of safe, clean, and, over time, cheap energy. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:09:57 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91709 2009-11-20T15:09:57Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91683 A year ago, I spoke with a French professor that worked for many years in the nuclear field. Because of his left leaning political views, he supported Obama. I explained that candidate Obama would NEVER, EVER support nuclear energy. After a very long discussion, it finally hit him that the liberal left in this country will choose any other energy solution above nuclear no matter how costly and no matter if it works or not. Part of that desire to be blind is that nuclear is often supported by republicans and thus the main reason democrats stay opposed. <br><br>It was pointed out recently that the US government pays for environmental groups to sue the US government. What I mean is that tax dollars are there for the taking. Environmental groups sue if a deadline is passed even if the government is working hard to meet it. So there is absolutely no forgiveness and thus the amount of small lawsuits and payments to environmental groups is staggering. This is the culture in the US that we have nurtured for many years and why we have driven out jobs, and curtailed energy solutions. <br><br>I am personally supportive of energy solutions that are close to the need, will stand on their own without government subsidies. I am o.k. with initial government help to get it up and running, but at some point the community being supplied that energy must absorb the cost since they are the benefactor. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:34:45 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91683 2009-11-20T14:34:45Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91622 There are other "next generation" nuclear plants under development and not yet on the radar screen -- see www.hybridpwr.com. This hybrid nuclear/fossil fueled design was recently submitted to the US Department of Energy as a Next Generation Nuclear Power Plant. The technology marries the high temperature helium gas reactor with a combustion turbine combined-cycle power plant. This unexpected combination can also to be teamed up with a coal gasification plant, allowing the US to use our abundant coal, but greenhouse gas emissions are cut in half. Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:38:17 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91622 2009-11-20T03:38:17Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91523 Intersting article, and well-written. A great opportunity for every nation outside the US, but at least during our current administration it will not happen on American soil.<br><br>Of all the miserable aspects of the McCain campaign "platform", perhaps the only attractive one was to accelerate nuclear power generation. In a world of imperfect solutions, it remains the most reliable, the least consumptive of land space and quite frankly the safest -- waste considerations included. Because of a rational apprach to reprocessing and vitrification, the French, who have made roughly 70% of their energy from nuclear fission for forty years, store all the highly radioactive byproduct under three floor surfaces, each roughly the size of a basketball court, at the Beaumont-Hague facility.<br><br>But still the Washington establishment opposes it. The latest correspondence from the House Committe on Energy and Commerce illustrates the way they will stop it:<br><a href="http://markey.house.gov/docs/chu_loan_guarantees_11-06-09.pdf" target="_blank">http://markey.house.gov/docs/chu_loan_guarantees_11-06-09.pdf</a><br><br>Rep. Markey manages to portray all the near-term potential designs as unsafe. This is patently untrue: the AP1000, for example, met all the requirements specified by the NRC years ago when it was first drawn up. But in the past 12 months, requirements for aircraft impact were further increased, which Westinghouse dutifully met. Then the NRC pointed out that in that same specification rewrite, the seismic requirements also went up, driving ANOTHER round of redesign. Surprise: until this new requirement is met, the AP1000 is "unsafe". The higher antes will never end.<br><br>Remember candidate Obama's words: "I'm all for safe nuclear power." The operative word (and thus the out) is "safe". As soon as anyone in a legislative or regulatory role uses the word "unsafe", President Obama can retreat.<br><br>A pity, as we pave the countryside with solar cells and windmills that won't meet demand. Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:31:31 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002520/the-technologies-for-a-nuclear-resurgence/#18877_91523 2009-11-19T20:31:31Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91345 It is the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) that is key.<br><br>EROEIs:<br>Domestic (US) oil ca. 1930 - 100:1<br>Imported oil ca. 1970 - 30:1<br>Domestic (US) oil ca. 1970 - slightly less than 30:1<br>Imported oil ca. 2005 - 18:1<br>Domestic (US) oil ca. 2005 - 10-15:1<br><br>Charlie Hall's estimate on what is needed to maintain modern civilization: 5:1.<br><br>Some others think it might be sooner.<br><br><br><br> Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:58:39 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91345 2009-11-18T20:58:39Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91322 Wasn't it just early last year that we were in a similar point in the plot? <br><br>Except in the early months of last year the <i>experts</i> were telling us that all was well - the economy is robust - full speed ahead. There were a few shrill voices on the sidelines who'd checked their sums and were predicting just what would happen when the train ran into the chasm, but they were marginalized - no one wanted to hear the bridge was out when the pots were growing and the cards were flying in back in the club car.<br><br>So here it's late 2009, and once again the <i>experts</i> (generally economists) are telling us there's no peak in oil production - all is well - business as usual. Those guys in the engine, with a clear view of the tracks ahead, and all their calculators and computers and data? What do they know - <i>feh!</i> - they are only the oil field geologists who spent their lives studying the resource, and they can see that the energy bridge is out.<br><br>We do know that these stories have different endings - when the banks froze up, we printed money. <br><br>Funny thing about oil, (and energy in general) you can't print it.<br><br><br> Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:27:41 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91322 2009-11-18T17:27:41Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91283 Sure Three and two. Drill up for space-based solar power. If you take oil out of baseload duty, and as more cars plug into the grid, the more oil that's available for plastics manufacturing, etc. We will need the remaining oil supply for the other products.<br><br>Space-based solar can meet the baseload energy demands of 2100 without presenting carbon emissions or nuclear waste and solve the climate issue in the process. Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:28:50 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91283 2009-11-18T16:28:50Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91280 Sure, there is plenty of oil left, perhaps a lot of it still to be discovered. But at what price to extract, refine and deliver it? <br><br>Cheaper oil just means greater demand and a quicker ascent to peak oil production.<br><br>Can't we figure out something better to use for energy in the meantime? Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:56:14 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002510/peak-oil-not-here-and-not-for-decades-cera-study-says/#18831_91280 2009-11-18T15:56:14Z http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002494/pickens-300-oil-is-still-coming/#18743_90833 I personally would not trust Pickens as far as I can throw my house. After all, he has a horse in the race. However as long as population growth is out of control, which it is, at some point demand will outstrip supply unless more supply comes online. If you look at countries that have used wind source as energy, it still is only less than 10 percent of their energy solutions. Wind needs a back-up energy source as well and thus a double cost. Also many locations are just not feasible just like sun energy is not feasible everywhere either. As an example, my co-op electric doesn't support either wind or solar and instead wants more nuclear. However that is very costly and many still have fears and thus the reason one hasn't been built here in the US for many years. There are few in the US with nuclear energy education as well. We just let that technology pretty much die here in the US. I realize that France did not. <br><br>For the life of me I just cannot understand why conservative measures are the the immediate choice while other technologies come on board which will take many years. There are so many people that live so far from their workplace. I remember when I lived in Chicago a few years back, that many traveled from Racine, WI to Chicago every single day. That is utterly crazy. Same thing in Dallas, TX. When I lived in Garland, TX some years ago, it took me 15 min. to get to downtown Dallas. When I moved, it was nearly 1 1/4 hrs to do the same loop. It is commuters that refuse to use transit because it is inconvenient to their lifestyle. <br><br>I currently live rural. My 2000 truck has 50,000 miles on it most of it put on when I was taking long trips south. My other truck is 12 years old with over 100,000 miles and was used my various family members for work. You can see I don't drive much. Truth is I don't waste my trips. <br><br>Instead of reinventing the wheel, how about we sit down hard on this nation and start to conserve our energy and natural resources before it is too late. Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:04:46 GMT http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002494/pickens-300-oil-is-still-coming/#18743_90833 2009-11-16T16:04:46Z