tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post3113299645355747985..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Waxman-Markey Passes the House of Representatives, 219-212 (sigh... )Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-19943714495027371892009-07-01T01:14:40.816-04:002009-07-01T01:14:40.816-04:00RDF,
I think cutting consumption is a longer term...RDF,<br /><br />I think cutting consumption is a longer term project, not something that will be easily sold in the near term.<br /><br />France and Japan are going for breeders. Ultimately if one wants to reuse nuclear waste, the solution to the storage problem, one needs them. Thorium looks good also.Barkley Rosserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13114257724762074636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-80990981893048599352009-06-30T13:37:38.664-04:002009-06-30T13:37:38.664-04:00I've also changed my position a bit on nuclear...I've also changed my position a bit on nuclear, but the fear of "proliferation" means that the most cost-effective technology (breeders) is not being considered.<br /><br />The present systems favored in the US use too much Uranium, create too much waste and are too expensive to build and operate without massive (mostly hidden) government subsidies. The 20th Century will be remembered for one of the most wasteful resource projects since the pyramids: enriching Uranium up to weapons grade and the diluting it again for use in reactors.<br /><br />I'd also like to see some real progress on dealing with the spent fuel rods being housed in people's backyards all over the country. Breeders could be part of a solution as can reactors which use Thorium.<br /><br />As for cutting consumption, aren't we seeing this right now because of the downturn? Extending this is a matter of changing attitudes and expectations.<br /><br />You might find my essay:<br /><a href="http://robertdfeinman.com/society/slow_work.html" rel="nofollow">Slow Work</a> amusing.Robert D Feinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811511835460945217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-5897890691502000332009-06-30T13:27:22.736-04:002009-06-30T13:27:22.736-04:00rdfeinman,
I fully agree that this is much harder...rdfeinman,<br /><br />I fully agree that this is much harder than SO2. I fear that cutting consumption is more unrealistic than massively subsidizing too-expensive wind or CC&S. This is one of the reasons I have long said we need to bite the bullet and get nuclear going again in a serious way.<br /><br />ML,<br /><br />Well, that is cute, except that it suggests that things are not so bad if you sit tight, but they might be terrible if you attempt to jump. In this case, things may be only slightly worse if we jump, but they are likely to be terrible if we do not.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-27453317299016514682009-06-30T12:15:30.410-04:002009-06-30T12:15:30.410-04:00This Cautious optimism reminds me of a quote attri...This Cautious optimism reminds me of a quote attributed to Lloyd George:<br />"There is nothing so dangerous as to leap a chasm in two jumps."<br />--mlMartin Langelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12214277415738344944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-83651170925446977602009-06-30T11:17:19.659-04:002009-06-30T11:17:19.659-04:00The SO2 agreement is actually a poor precedent to ...The SO2 agreement is actually a poor precedent to cite. <br />1. The technology for removing sulfur was already known. The mandate just provided the incentives for implemnetation and tweaking.<br />2. The amount of pollutant to be handled was small (2-4% of emissions).<br />3. There were alternatives: low sulfur coal and natural gas.<br /><br />In the present case we have:<br />1. No functional technology for "clean coal" or other ways to handle CO2.<br />2. A huge amount of pollutant, hard coal is essentially 100% carbon. Stack emission are much higher in CO2 to be removed.<br />3. Alternative "fuels" like wind and solar have not yet been proven to be up to the task. They also don't solve the issue of the need for liquid fuel for transportation and similar uses.<br /><br />An image popped into my head this morning. We are in a leaky boat and the various groups are debating whether to bail with a teaspoon or a tablespoon. <br /><br />I'll sing my same song: the only viable solution is to cut consumption. Improvements in efficiency only encourage greater use since the price falls. Cutting consumption means restructuring society so that it is not based upon consuming and wasting non-renewable resources at an ever-increasing, unsustainable rate.<br /><br />That no one is willing to discuss this and to see how 19th Century capitalism cannot be the model for the future does not bode well for the people of the world.Robert D Feinmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11811511835460945217noreply@blogger.com