Google
 

Friday, April 18, 2008

Ethanol and the Big Green Lie

Why is it that in spite of overwhelming evidence that ethanol as a motor vehicle fuel is not the solution to either the carbon emission or the energy independence issue do we still hear politicians promoting its use and car makers promoting their flex fuel vehicles. On a life cycle basis the production and use of ethanol for transportation produces more greenhouse gases than oil.

From an energy independence perspective in spite of what we are led to believe in the media about dependence on middle eastern oil, almost all of the imported oil that the US uses comes from Canada, Mexico and (unfortunately) Venezuela. Only a small part comes from the middle east and the rest from Russia and Nigeria.

Plus the use of land and crops for ethanol production rather than food has raised the prices of almost everything in the food chain.

Sorry Iowa corn farmers but this lunacy has to stop!

The best solution to the transportation problem is to transition as rapidly as possible to an all electric powered fleet of vehicles that are recharged by electricity generated by hundreds of new nuclear plants. That is the only logical and practical way to truly address both problems.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Reunions and Nuclear Power

The title of this post is an interesting mix of thoughts that requires some explanation.

This past weekend I attended my 40th (count 'em) college reunion. I experienced the usual reaction of being surprised at all the "old" people in attendance. Where did they all come from? Reunions - at least at this lofty number - are always a little bittersweet. It was great reliving and laughing about all the good times we had and marvel that we actually survived our college days relatively unscathed.

On the other hand you know that there are only a few more gatherings of this kind to come. In fact at my alma mater - Duke University - they cut it off at 50. I guess they figure at that point the alums are either too senile or too tired to care.

As to the connection with nuclear power at the aforementioned reunion, I got into a "vigorous" discussion with the wife (whom I knew when she was an undergrad) of one of my fraternity brothers about the benefits of nuclear power as a partial solution to the concern about greenhouse gases. (By the way see my previous post re the global warming debate.) She said she was dead set against nuclear power because of the "unsolved" problem of waste disposal. I pointed out to her that contrary to the anti-nuc propaganda, fully developed technologies for the safe disposal of nuclear waste have been around for over 30 years, and the "unsolved" problem was how to get around the NIMBY syndrome and related political issues that prevent these technologies from being used.

I further noted that the anti-nuc movement has a vested interest in keeping the issue open since doing so perpetuates the myth of an "unsolved" problem which in truth they do not want to be "solved."

As a trained nuclear engineer who spent the better part of 25 years operating, building and servicing nuclear power plants I do speak with some authority on this issue. Nevertheless I was completely unable to persuade my opponent even thought she had no technical background or knowledge about the subject.

Like many who are ignorant of nuclear issues her position was based entirely on an emotional reaction to the scaremongering of the anti-nuc movement and the belief that all we need to do is build thousands of wind turbines from North Dakota to Texas. She seemed to be unfazed by the fact that wind turbines are both eye pollutants and voracious killers of migrating birds, not to mention the enormous costs of the transmission and distribution system that would be needed to move all the wind energy to the areas that need it.

My frustration was that here we had an otherwise very bright person who would rather ignore the facts about a subject she didn't understand in favor of a simple rejection of the idea. It was almost like she made decision to be deliberately brain dead on this issue.

This is why in spite of the recent talk about a nuclear renaissance, I am very pessimistic that any more light water nuclear reactors will ever be built in the United States. Europe, China, Japan, South Korea and others will continue to develop and apply this much needed technology and once again the US will be lagging the world largely due to a combination of a head-in-the-sand approach to the technologies and a lack of political will.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Politically Schizophrenic

OK you ask. As a scientific humanist what flavor of politics do I support. Well let's see. I am pro-choice and pro stem cell research - typically positions favored by the more liberal set. I am in favor of limited government, low taxes and individual freedom and responsibility - which tend toward the libertarian or republican agendas.

I am more consistent on the abortion issue than either political party. Support of a woman's right to choose is 100% consistent with the libertarian philosophy of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Using similar logic I am in favor of an individual's right to medically supervised euthanasia.

I am in favor of public schools, but feel that in many parts of the country - particularly the inner city - parents have abdicated their responsibility to be involved with their children's education with disastrous effects (e.g. 50% drop out rates). I am also appalled by an apparent culture of mediocrity that seems to actively fight against excellence in our schools. I am concerned that many parents choose to remove their children from public schools just because of the non-biblical science curriculum. These parents are putting their children at a significant disadvantage in competing in the new "flat world" environment.

I am in favor of free trade and open immigration standards for highly skilled persons no matter what their country of origin. On the issue of illegal immigrants already here, I believe those that obey the laws (other than the one they broke to get here in the first place) and pay their taxes should be given the opportunity to "legalize" their status. I am in favor of eliminating the automatic citizenship to anyone born here. That privilege should be allowed only to the children of legal immigrants and US citizens.

I believe we were right to take out Saddam but the post take-out strategy has been very poorly managed.

I believe it is time for everyone to stop whining. The culture of victim hood needs to be flipped on its head. Life, government nor anyone else owes you anything. Get over it and get on with it.

This is just a short list. Will need to expand on this later.

Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Global Warming Debate

I am a subscriber and regular reader of Scientific American. As one might expect from the title their coverage of scientific issues is generally on the mark. Unfortunately on the issue of global warming - or more specifically anthropogenic (i.e. the whole problem is created by humans) global warming - the editors of SA have apparently drunk the Al Gore Kool Aid and have bought the human activity driven hypothesis hook, line and sinker.

My own view is that it is the height of egotism to presume that humans and their activities are so important to a planet whose climate has historically been and is still today driven first by the sun and its variations in energy output and second by the earth itself via its naturally occurring volcanism. The bottom line is that humans just ain't that important.

Whether or not the earth is in a long term warming cycle is still highly debatable. Even if it is my belief is that it is most likely the result of naturally occurring cyclical variations in the sun's output and the Earth's orbit around the sun rather than anything that mankind might contribute.

Remember that the Earth has gone through multiple ice ages and periods with no ice caps at all without the benefit of a single human footprint.

Attached below is a link to an outstanding documentary produced by the CBC that questions the whole global warming hysteria. You won't find this being shown in any theaters near you nor will any of the participating scientists be receiving any academy awards. It's about 45 minutes long but well worth viewing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&hl=en