What a despicable display of ignorant bloviating. This is how best to describe the US House of Representatives hearings over gas prices. Rather than deal with real and meaningful actions that the government can take to actually increase supply of both crude oil and gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign sources, our elected leaders chose to trash the oil executives summarily subpoenaed to a public lashing.
What a joke. The government - in its federal, state and local varieties - has blocked the development of domestic sources offshore, in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska and discouraged the building and expansion of new refineries to convert the crude oil into gasoline. As a result supplies are tight and as we all learned in economics 101 when demand outstrips supply prices increase to a point where either demand drops or supplies increase or both.
In an earlier blog I noted that in fact the demand side of this equation is working in the US with the sharply reduced demand for trucks and SUV's vs. the increase in demand for more fuel efficient vehicles. In addition more people are taking public transportation, curtailing vacation plans that require long drives and even looking for jobs closer to home or work-at-home opportunities to save on commuting costs. These are all good things and a natural consequence of market forces.
Rather than beat up the oil execs, our elected officials would better serve the people by developing a comprehensive energy policy that recognizes and encourages the development of all sources of energy (not just wind and solar which will help with home and business electricity supply but will do nothing to move your vehicle) including nuclear power as well as conservation.
We the people deserve better from our elected officials.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Ice and Ocean Levels
OK - I can't stand it anymore. All this is absolute nonsense. In what I call the the "Al Gore effect" there seems to be a commonly held belief that if the Arctic ice melts all our shoreline property will be inundated by a rising ocean level. This is just more example of the junk science that the scientifically ignorant media loves to repeat.
Message to Al (and the media) - ICE IS LESS DENSE THAN WATER. Get it. That's why it floats and why we have ice on our ponds and lakes to skate on in the winter. The fact is that if all of the Arctic ice at the north pole melted our ocean level would actually DECREASE since the volume of water that ice displaces is greater than it would create if it melted.
Most folks understand this from real life. If I have a glass of ice water that is mostly ice, as the ice melts my glass does not overflow. In fact if one were to measure the level in the glass as the ice melts the level drops. Isn't that interesting???
All this anthropogenic global warming hysteria is more scaremongering about the "effects" of climate change as a way to drive politically motivated outcomes related to economic choices that we face as individuals and as a nation.
While it is true that if the Arctic icecap melted polar bears may have to revert to land based scavenging rather than ice floes for their food, this is not the end of of the western world. And by the way the bears themselves seem to do very well at this operating out of land bases in Canada.
It gave me great pleasure to see a documentary today that finally revealed the deep division among "climatologists" about whether the global climate is being set up for a hot house effect (a la Al Gore's inconvenient "untruth") or another mini ice age.
As I have stated in earlier blogs on this site the earth's climate is more a function of its own volcanism, the sun's varying output of total energy, and variations in the earth's eccentric orbit around the sun. My point is that man's influence on the whole outcome is and will be like pissing in the ocean, and I am gratified that even the "experts" are unsure and divided about what this all means.
We need to stop worrying about global warming and start moving forward with sensible solutions (a.k.a nuclear power and an all electric transportation system) to our long term energy needs.
Message to Al (and the media) - ICE IS LESS DENSE THAN WATER. Get it. That's why it floats and why we have ice on our ponds and lakes to skate on in the winter. The fact is that if all of the Arctic ice at the north pole melted our ocean level would actually DECREASE since the volume of water that ice displaces is greater than it would create if it melted.
Most folks understand this from real life. If I have a glass of ice water that is mostly ice, as the ice melts my glass does not overflow. In fact if one were to measure the level in the glass as the ice melts the level drops. Isn't that interesting???
All this anthropogenic global warming hysteria is more scaremongering about the "effects" of climate change as a way to drive politically motivated outcomes related to economic choices that we face as individuals and as a nation.
While it is true that if the Arctic icecap melted polar bears may have to revert to land based scavenging rather than ice floes for their food, this is not the end of of the western world. And by the way the bears themselves seem to do very well at this operating out of land bases in Canada.
It gave me great pleasure to see a documentary today that finally revealed the deep division among "climatologists" about whether the global climate is being set up for a hot house effect (a la Al Gore's inconvenient "untruth") or another mini ice age.
As I have stated in earlier blogs on this site the earth's climate is more a function of its own volcanism, the sun's varying output of total energy, and variations in the earth's eccentric orbit around the sun. My point is that man's influence on the whole outcome is and will be like pissing in the ocean, and I am gratified that even the "experts" are unsure and divided about what this all means.
We need to stop worrying about global warming and start moving forward with sensible solutions (a.k.a nuclear power and an all electric transportation system) to our long term energy needs.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Markets vs. Politicians
As the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline moves into the $3.50+ range, a remarkable chain of events is occurring. The first is lo and behold the demand for gasoline is decreasing thereby proving that in fact demand is price elastic. Isn't it remarkable the way markets work their magic.
The second shift is in the consumer appetite for large/SUV vehicles vs. smaller more fuel efficient and even hybrid cars in spite of their higher initial cost. The auto makers can't seem to produce enough of the latter type and the former are building in dealer inventories. Not to mention that the whole RV industry is being killed by the high price of gas.
What both these trends remind us is that in the US free market system markets do in fact work. They may not respond as quickly as some would like but they do work. They are working to discourage the use of gasoline and to increase the average fuel efficiency of the operating fleet of cars - thereby reducing carbon and other emissions - all without the help of our Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats.
Against this backdrop we have both Clinton and McCain arguing for a suspension in the federal taxes on gasoline. What a terrible way to pander to the electorate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. On this issue Obama has it right.
The second shift is in the consumer appetite for large/SUV vehicles vs. smaller more fuel efficient and even hybrid cars in spite of their higher initial cost. The auto makers can't seem to produce enough of the latter type and the former are building in dealer inventories. Not to mention that the whole RV industry is being killed by the high price of gas.
What both these trends remind us is that in the US free market system markets do in fact work. They may not respond as quickly as some would like but they do work. They are working to discourage the use of gasoline and to increase the average fuel efficiency of the operating fleet of cars - thereby reducing carbon and other emissions - all without the help of our Washington DC politicians and bureaucrats.
Against this backdrop we have both Clinton and McCain arguing for a suspension in the federal taxes on gasoline. What a terrible way to pander to the electorate. This is exactly the wrong thing to do. On this issue Obama has it right.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
