Telling Stories

Solar Energy For Everyone! (Sort of)

The biggest hurdle in the refinement of solar energy, and energy in general, is the inability to store electricity in a cost-effective manner.  An MIT crew appears to have taken a giant leap towards addressing this issue.  Via Informed Comment:

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed an unprecedented process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power your house or your electric car, day or night.

Sunlight has the greatest potential of any power source to solve the world's energy problems, said Nocera. In one hour, enough sunlight strikes the Earth to provide the entire planet's energy needs for one year.

James Barber, a leader in the study of photosynthesis who was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a "giant leap" toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

"This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind," said Barber, the Ernst Chain Professor of Biochemistry at Imperial College London. "The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated since it opens up the door for developing new technologies for energy production thus reducing our dependence for fossil fuels and addressing the global climate change problem."

Emphasis added.  In many places, these developments may make power plants either a thing of the past or will dramatically reduce the need for them.  Furthermore, if you're producing your own oxygen and hydrogen at home, this development may make it all the more possible for fuel cell vehicles to be used just like every other combustion vehicle.

Wonderful news indeed.

"You Could be Replaced With a Monkey!"

I heard that one before from one of Wife's previous bosses.  He was kidding, though he may have been on to something:

[R]esearchers have shown that young chimps outperform adult humans in a memory test, a Concentration-like game using numerals on a computer screen. . .

Dr. Matsuzawa and a colleague, Sana Inoue, first trained chimps to recognize the numerals 1 through 9 in sequence. Ai, the first chimp trained, an adult female was found with a memory capability equal to that of adult humans.

When the researchers went to see if there was a difference with chimps younger than 6, the animals had a touch screen where scattered numerals appeared for up to two-thirds of a second and were then masked by white squares. With the shortest exposure time, about a fifth of a second, the chimps had an 80 percent accuracy rate, compared with adult humans’ 40 percent. The findings are described in Current Biology.

So, the next time someone tells you that a monkey could do your job, maybe you should say "thank you!"

Tags: Science

God Has a Sense of Humor

And don't let anyone tell you otherwise.  Many men who were opposing using embryos to obtain stem-cells, even when those embryos were slated to be destroyed, will have an opportunity to volunteer in the name of Science:

Easily accessed and plentiful, adult stem cells found in a male patient's testicles might someday be used to create a wide range of tissue types to help him fight disease -- getting around the need for more controversial embryonic stem cells.

After a decade of research, Howard Hughes Medical Institute scientists have succeeded in reprogramming adult stem cells from the testes of male mice into functional blood vessels and contractile cardiac tissue. The research offers a promising new source of stem cells for use in organ regeneration studies.

Emphasis added.  I guess that, with all those men who want to tell women what to do with their bodies, I can start using the expression "put your balls where your mouth is."

Tags: Health and Medicine, Science

Well, This Explains a Lot!

Via The Gallup Poll:

The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

Normally, I would take this opportunity to state how idiotic Republicans are or what not.  However, these results defy political convetion.

Now thinking about how human beings came to exist on Earth, do you, personally, believe in evolution, or not (2007 May 21-24)?

Yes, believe in evolution 49%

No, do not 48%

No opinion 2%

Think about it.  You have even odds of coming across someone who believes in evolution (which, even if incomplete and flawed, still is the most likely and most reasonable explanation for everything) as you do of talking to someone who believes in a talking snake, a woman made of a man's rib, and both walking around naked in some kind of idyllic place that nobody has been able to document.

Not to mention that you get into the whole issue of which "creation story" is right, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?  And if both stories come from God, why are they different?  But here's a good one too!!!

(Asked of those who do not believe in evolution) What is the most important reason why you would say you do not believe in evolution? [OPEN-ENDED]  2007 May 21-24

I believe in Jesus Christ 19%

I believe in the almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth 16%

Due to my religion and faith 16%

Not enough scientific evidence to prove otherwise 14%

I believe in what I read in the Bible 12%

I'm a Christian 9%

I don't believe humans come from beasts/monkeys 3%

Other 5%

No reason in particular 2%

No opinion 3%

Emphasis added.  Funny that the same people who don't believe in evolution because there's not enough evidence to prove otherwise fail to see that there is no scientific proof whatsoever documenting the existence of God.

My main concern, however, is that I believe the Bible has so much more to offer if don't take it literally.  And it makes much more sense if you look at it that way.  For example, we know that there is no "heaven" in the sense of something in the clouds.  And if "heaven" isn't there, well, where did Jesus ascend to?  Even at the speed of light he wouldn't be out of our galaxy yet.  There are certain biblical "facts" that clash with our understanding of the laws of nature and how the universe works.

But if you look at the "resurrection" of Jesus and his ascension as something symbolic, it takes on an added meaning that no law of physics can challenge.

That, however, would require independent thinking and investigation, both of which are hard work.

So, you see, it's easier for some to buy into the package deal.

Tags: Politics, Religion, Science

Wind Farms - Wrong Headline!!!

It's been a while since I've come across a blatantly misleading headline, but thanks to today's New York Times, we're back in business!!!

Headline: "Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study Suggests"

First paragraph:  "Building thousands of wind turbines would probably not reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain, but it would slow the growth in emissions of heat-trapping gases, according to a study released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences."

Because I found these statements rather puzzling, I went to the National Academy of Sciences' website to see what it was all about.

You know you have really bad and misleading reporting when you don't even have to look at the report to find out why the headline and leading article didn't make much sense.  Just a cursory read of the press release was enough to set the record straight:

The committee concluded that use of wind energy to generate electricity probably would not significantly reduce emissions of two other pollutants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, because current and expected regulations of these are largely based on cap-and-trade programs.  The degree to which emissions would be further reduced through special provisions to encourage wind-energy use --  such as set-asides, in which a percentage of emissions allowed under the cap are retired to the extent they can be offset by wind energy -- is uncertain, the committee added.

Emphasis added.  Cap-and-trade programs limit the total amount of pollutants that can be emitted, but it allows those businesses that emit less than their maximum allowed to "trade" that difference to other businesses who cannot meet that lower standard.  For example, if I have a facility that can emit no more than 10 units of a pollutant, but by implementing technological and efficiency measures I manage to emit only 8 units, I am allowed to trade that extra 2 units to someone who is emitting 12 units and cannot afford - or does not want - to improve its facility to emit less.

Therefore, if there is a cap-and-trade program it means there is already a limit to the amount of some pollutants, in this case sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides (commonly referred to as "SOX and NOX").  So no reduction will necessarily come about from wind farms.

Even worse, the article misstates the study's conclusions - or, arguably, the NAS misstates its own conclusions in its press release:  The NYT article states:

Wind machines can displace power from coal and make electricity without sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain, and without nitrogen oxides, which add to smog. But the study said they would not reduce the total output of those pollutants because there was already a cap on sulfur emissions and one on nitrogen oxides was likely to follow.

Emphasis added.  But if you read the previous quote from the study, doesn't it say something along the lines of "uncertain"?  Ah, yes:

The degree to which emissions would be further reduced through special provisions to encourage wind-energy use --  such as set-asides, in which a percentage of emissions allowed under the cap are retired to the extent they can be offset by wind energy -- is uncertain, the committee added.

Emphasis added.  Whew!  I thought I was reading things!

But it gets better.  The article's headline is misleading because it claims that wind farms may not lower air pollution.  However, the paragraph preceding the one I quoted clearly states otherwise:

A primary benefit of using wind to generate electricity is that it produces no carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, or any other air pollutant.  Based on U.S. Department of Energy projections for wind-energy development in the United States, the committee estimated that by 2020, wind energy will offset approximately 4.5 percent of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted by other electricity sources.  In 2005, electricity generation accounted for 39 percent of the nation's total CO2 emissions.

Emphasis added.  Oh, yes.  The article does get around to mentioning this.  But it does so - again - in a very biased and misleading way:

Wind power could also reduce coal-plant carbon dioxide, which is thought to cause climate change, but the impact may be small, the report said. By 2025, wind turbines could cut carbon dioxide output by 4.5 percent compared with what it would otherwise have been, but this “would only slow the increase,” said Dr. Risser. “It wouldn’t result in a decrease in the amount of CO2.”

Emphasis added.  There are two things that are worth noting here.  First, the underlying - but unstated - assumption is that CO2 emissions will not be subject to any form of regulation or control like SOX and NOX.  Given the recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Massachusetts v. EPA  it's only a matter of time until EPA starts regulating CO2 as a pollutant, in which case cap-and-trade and the like may be applied to CO2.  Second, the absence of any regulatory control on CO2 is the basis for the conclusion that the benefits of wind farms may be small.  Neither the article nor the study discuss the effect of different regulatory controls - cap-and-trade, carbon tax, etc. - and an expanded use of wind farms on CO2 emissions.

Also as important, the uncertainty regarding the "displacement" theory - that wind farm generation would displace older, more polluting, and less efficient electricity-generating facilities - makes any conclusion regarding the "benefits" or "drawbacks" of wind farms suspect at this time.

Of course, you won't see this analysis in the NYT any time soon because they are the ones trying to tell the story.

Tags: Environment, Bad Media, Science

Environmental Laws and Extremely Short-Term Memory

I read this headline at the Washington Post today and I had to double-check that it wasn't "The Onion."

U.S. Wants Polar Bears Listed as Threatened [ ]

The Bush administration has decided to propose listing the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, putting the U.S. government on record as saying that global warming could drive one of the world's most recognizable animals out of existence.

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting. The official insisted on anonymity because the department will submit the proposal today for publication in the Federal Register, after which it will be subject to public comment for 90 days.

Before we all start confusing George W. Bush with, say, George Perkins Marsh, lets remember what the Bush administration has stood for over the past six years with respect to global warming and endangered species, shall we?

From the Sunday July 4, 2004 WaPo,

Endangered Species Act's Protections Are Trimmed [ ]

The Bush administration has succeeded in reshaping the Endangered Species Act in ways that have sharply limited the impact of the 30-year-old law aimed at protecting the nation's most vulnerable plants and animals, according to environmentalists and some independent analysts.

The Bush initiatives, which have ranged from recalculating the economic costs of protecting critical habitats to limiting the number of species added to the protected list, reflect a policy shift that Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton calls the "New Environmentalism." Under this approach, federal officials have focused more on providing incentives to private landowners to protect the habitats of endangered species than on prohibiting human activity on those lands. While some environmentalists praise the incentive programs, they say these projects are not enough to protect animals and plants on the brink of extinction.

From the October 30, 2006 WaPo (that is, before election day)

Bush Appointee Said to Reject Advice on Endangered Species [ ]

A senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department has rejected staff scientists' recommendations to protect imperiled animals and plants under the Endangered Species Act at least six times in the past three years, documents show.

In addition, staff complaints that their scientific findings were frequently overruled or disparaged at the behest of landowners or industry have led the agency's inspector general to look into the role of Julie MacDonald, who has been deputy assistant secretary of the interior for fish and wildlife and parks since 2004, in decisions on protecting endangered species.

Via  CommonDreams.org, from February 2, 2005:

Judge: Bush Administration Violated Endangered Species Act [ ]

The Bush administration violated the Endangered Species Act when it relaxed protections on many of the nation's gray wolves, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones in Portland handed down a decision Tuesday rescinding a rule change that allowed ranchers to shoot wolves on sight if they were attacking livestock, said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental group.

Via Space.com on October 27, 2004:

NASA Scientist: Bush Stifles Global Warming Evidence

The Bush administration is trying to stifle scientific evidence of the dangers of global warming in an effort to keep the public uninformed, a NASA scientist said Tuesday night.

"In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it is now," James E. Hansen told a University of Iowa audience.

Hansen is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and has twice briefed a task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney on global warming.

Hansen said the administration wants to hear only scientific results that "fit predetermined, inflexible positions." Evidence that would raise concerns about the dangers of climate change is often dismissed as not being of sufficient interest to the public.

Again, from the November 4, 2004 WaPo:

U.S. Wants No Warming Proposal
Administration Aims to Prevent Arctic Council Suggestions

The Bush administration has been working for months to keep an upcoming eight-nation report from endorsing broad policies aimed at curbing global warming, according to domestic and foreign participants, despite the group's conclusion that Arctic latitudes are facing historic increases in temperature, glacial melting and abrupt weather changes.

State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals. But several participants in the negotiations, all of whom requested anonymity for fear of derailing the Nov. 24 report, said officials from the eight nations and six indigenous tribes involved in the effort had ample science on which to draft policy.

The recommendations are based on a study, which was leaked last week, that concludes the Arctic is warming much faster than other areas of the world and that much of this change is linked to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment -- produced by a council of nations with Arctic territory that includes the United States, Canada, Russia and several Nordic countries -- reflects the work of more than 300 scientists.

Now, this really gets me going.  Compare these passages from the November 2004 article,

State Department representatives have argued that the group, which has spent four years examining Arctic climate fluctuations, lacks the evidence to prepare detailed policy proposals. . . The recommendations are based on a study, which was leaked last week, that concludes the Arctic is warming much faster than other areas of the world and that much of this change is linked to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions.

With this passage from today's news

The administration's proposal -- which was described by an Interior Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity -- stems from the fact that rising temperatures in the Arctic are shrinking the sea ice that polar bears need for hunting.

If this is not your "doubting Thomas" - slash - "ostrich science" argument, I don't know what is.  But it gets better.  Even the Pentagon was warning Bush about this back in February 2004:

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism [ ]

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

Emphasis added.  Now, after that well-documented history of denials and obstructionism, why would the Bush administration embrace the ESA for something that would have such broad implications to the U.S.'s long-term energy strategy?

Politics.  Plain and simple.  Anyone who has ever had to deal with the ESA can tell you that it's one of the few project "show stoppers" out there.  I've dealt with it as a government regulator and as a private project proponent.  And the issue is very simple: if you have an endangered species issue with your project, you better find a way to address it or your project won't go forward.  Period.

In this case, there are two possible outcomes.  The first one is that the ESA will be used as political cover - since the Democrats in Congress will never agree to weaken the ESA - to require additional restrictions on the emission of greenhouse gases.  In other words, "we have to comply with the ESA and those darn Democrats won't give you a break."

The second possibility may be a new push to weaken the ESA.  The argument could be "we should allow an exemption for these facilities or industries that contribute to the problem because it is a worldwide problem."  I don't think this is likely to succeed because most countries in the world, developed and undeveloped, have agreed to the Kyoto protocol, and thus they are on board as "doing something" to reduce or cap emissions of greenhouse gases.

Which one is it?  Or is it something else?  I don't know.  But somewhere in the White House, Karl Rove has already put his political abacus to work on this one.  And there is something the Bush administration seeks to gain from all this.

Tags: Science, Environment, Politics, Bad Media

It's (Almost) the End of the World as We Know It

How come I didn't even hear about this until today?

In March 2005, a nuclear warhead almost exploded in Texas. The near miss accident occurred in Amarillo, when workers at the Pantex nuclear weapons plant bungled the dismantling of a W-56 warhead, a weapon 100 times stronger than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II.

Details of the averted catastrophe have been kept under wraps until last month, when the Department of Energy (DOE) fined the company that operates the plant, BWX Technologies, $110,000 for safety violations.

In a letter obtained by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), technicians at the plant blamed the accident on severe working conditions, including mandatory 72 to 84 hour work weeks. One nuclear scientist told POGO that he "would not work on his car engine if he were fatigued from a 72-hour work week, and sure as hell would not work on a nuclear weapon."

Emphasis added.  I don't know what's more disturbing: having some fatigued technician work on dismantling a nuclear weapon or that you get fined $110,000 when you nearly blow yourself and half of Texas up.

More on BWX via the LA Times:

An August field report by the safety board said BWXT was having difficulty finding qualified production technicians and was forcing its staff to work six 12-hour days a week, the maximum its procedures allowed. The conditions were supposed to improve by September; no subsequent reporting has indicated whether the situation changed.

The safety board also reported that severe weather in Amarillo had left a number of facilities with standing water. "Leaks through facility structure left puddles of water in several nuclear facility interlocks and bays and equipment rooms that support nuclear operations," the August report said.

The employees put the issue more bluntly: "Look around the plant. You will find leaking roofs, crumbling buildings, waist-high weed-infested landscapes, barricades and safety tape that makes this once-proud plant look like a crime scene."

Well, I'm glad I don't live in Amarillo, Texas, or anywhere nearby.  If this doesn't scare you, well, I don't know what will.

And, btw, why aren't these things leading news on the evening news?  I think people would like to know about this, don't you?

Tags: War, Science, Current Affairs

So Close and Yet So Far; So Alike, and Yet So Different

There are two different photos I'd like to share with you.  This is the first one:

And this is the second one:

 

 

The first photograph is from Darfur.  I guess the dead soldiers in the foreground and the rebel in the background pretty much gives it away.

The second photograph?  So close and yet so far . . .

It's Mars.

Dead soldiers aside, it's remarkable how similar these two places look like when in reality, they're not even on the same world.  Literally.

Tags: Science

Energy Independence and Nuclear Energy

No sooner did I publish my last post I found an op-ed piece that I substantially disagree with.  And also from the LA Times!  The culprit is Jeremy Rifkin's piece titled "Nuclear Energy: Still a Bad Idea."

Rifkin starts the piece by warning that although we are

facing rising costs of oil on world markets and real-time global warming, nuclear technology has been given a public relations face-lift and is touted, by some, as the energy of choice in a post-oil era. However, before we let our enthusiasm run away from us, we ought to take a sober look at the consequences of re-nuclearizing the world.

First, as I have noted in other posts, the post-oil era will have to rely in more than one energy source, at least in its earliest years.  Right now there is no single energy source that can replace oil.  And there won't be for a long while. Second, as far as I can tell, nobody is talking about re-nuclearizing "the world."  Darn, "the world" was never "nuclearized" in the first place.  But this is just being picky.  Lets move on.

First, nuclear power is unaffordable. With a minimum price tag of $2 billion each, new-generation nuclear power plants are 50% more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants. The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — which currently produces 20% of our electricity — could exceed half a trillion dollars. In a country facing record consumer and government debt, where is the money going to come from? Consumers would pay the price in terms of higher taxes to support government subsidies and higher electricity bills.

Three things should be noted here.  First, all things being equal, nuclear power would be unaffordable.  In other words, if nuclear energy was competing with oil and natural gas at current prices - or even at $80-$90/barrel - it would definitely be unaffordable.  But we are looking at nuclear energy as an alternative as we run out of oil, not while oil remains relatively abundant.  Second, as oil and natural gas is depleted, the cost of extracting every single drop of oil and every single cubic foot of natural gas will increase which, in turn, will cause their price to rise.  As the price of these commodities increase, nuclear energy generation will become more cost-effective and the market will become more interested in pursuing this alternative.  Third, Mr. Rifkin seems to be unaware that since deregulation private investment, not federal, state, or local governments, is responsible for the siting and construction of power plants, nuclear or otherwise.  If private enterprise decides to build nuclear power plants and bring them on line, it will be because it is profitable to do so, in which case the consumer won't notice the difference.  Next . . .

Second, 60 years into the nuclear era, our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that the underground storage facility will leak.

Now, his concern regarding the safe storage, transportation, and disposal of nuclear waste is one I personally share.  However, the last two sentences are extremely misleading.  First, it suggests that the EPA has conceded that the underground storage facility will leak within 10,000 years.  Is that true?  Well, I don't know.  I'm still working on it.  But this is why EPA chose 10,000 years:

There is world-wide scientific consensus that 10,000 years is a time over which we can reasonably predict geology, hydrology and climatology (we extrapolated backwards to the last ice age, 10,000 years ago). If [the project] can meet the standards for 10,000 years, then it is highly likely that it will survive beyond that. In developing the standards [ ] for disposal . . . EPA carefully evaluated the capabilities of mined geologic repositories to isolate the wastes from the environment. Because such repositories are capable of performing so well, it was possible to choose containment requirements that will provide exceptionally good protections to current and future populations for at least 10,000 years after disposal.

Emphasis added.  Hmmm.  So it appears that Mr. Rifkin got it wrong.  Also, here's yet another reason why the 10,000-year time frame is important:

Spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste contain both short- and long-lived radionuclides (i.e. some of the radionuclides have a short half life and some have a long half life). Most of the radionuclides in this waste will decay to insignificant levels within several hundred years. However, some radionuclides will take many thousands of years to decay to non-threatening levels.

Emphasis added.  Thus, in 10,000 years, most of the stuff at Yucca Mountain will be harmless goo.  I should note, however, that a federal lawsuit held that the 10,000-year standard had no rational basis.  But that doesn't take away from the findings regarding what could happen over a 10,000-year period.

Third, according to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered, and it is possible that new technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains purely speculative.

Emphasis added.  I need to combine this with the last paragraph of the op-ed.  You'll see where I'm going with this . . .

Instead, we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. And we should establish a hydrogen storage infrastructure to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of power for our electricity needs and for transportation. Our common energy future lies with the sun, not with uranium.

Emphasis added.  So we should totally discount nuclear energy because any new uranium deposits we could find or any technological improvements we might make are "purely speculative" but bringing online all these alternative renewable technologies is not.  For those of you out there old enough, remember Betamax versus VHS?  Two different technologies used to record video (in the days before DVDs or digital video).  If Betamax doesn't ring a bell is because this technology didn't make it.  It stuck around for a couple of years but eventually VHS cornered the market.  We don't know which of these alternative energy technologies will prove to be successful.  But we likewise ignore whether nuclear energy can be made safer.

Finally, the last point raised deals with security . . .

Fourth, building hundreds of nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamic terrorism seems insane. . . Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamic terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities. We should all be very worried.

This is so mistaken it is remarkable.   Rifkin seems to forget that the reason the Muslim terrorist from the Middle East are attacking the U.S. is because we are there.  And we are there because it is where over 70% of the proven oil reserves are in the world.  If oil was as important to the U.S. economy as, say, sugar, do you think we'd have the military and diplomatic presence we have in the Middle East?

The reason to look at alternative energy sources, including nuclear, is the fact that reducing and subsequently eliminating our dependence on oil also reduces or eliminates the geopolitical importance of the Middle East.  If we could go oil-free, it wouldn't make a difference whether the House of Saud falls to Islamic fundamentalists or not.  It wouldn't make a difference whether the Taliban controls Afghanistan.

The future lies with the sun.  But the future isn't here yet.

Tags: Environment, Energy, Science

Ecocreto: When Science Fiction Becomes Science Fact

Imagine a horrible downpour in a mid-size or large city.  Rain falling all over the place.  But instead of diverting the water to a ditch or a gutter and into a drainage system, imagine most of the water seeping into the soil, through the concrete.  Well, the real thing exists and it's called "Ecocreto" which is word play in Spanish between ecological and "concreto" or concrete.

(QUICK ASIDE:  Spare me the discussion about its proper name.  I know "concrete" is "hormigón" and not "concreto" but, really, does "Ecomigón" sound as good as "Ecocreto"?  I didn't think so.)

I just happened to hear about it on the radio and had to look it up.  It was invented in Mexico and it could, arguably, be part of the ongoing water crisis in Mexico City.  Here's their website in Spanish.  And this technology crossed the border too.  Here's the U.S. website out of Texas.

Fascinating stuff!

Tags: Science