tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post3248959143554748130..comments2024-03-29T00:39:31.629-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: An important new blog... and news from Worldcon and the high plains...David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75457256145425476092008-08-26T17:29:00.000-07:002008-08-26T17:29:00.000-07:00Jester:You're still not getting it.Oil has little ...Jester:<BR/><BR/>You're still not getting it.<BR/><BR/>Oil has little to do with electricity generation in the U.S. That's true. <BR/><BR/>What you're missing is the fact that the _only_ practical renewable alternatives to gas-guzzling cars are: (1) light electric rail, and (2) electric cars. <BR/><BR/>If you try to claim that ethanol or biofuels or whatever will let us power America's 150 million cars...forget it. Just not gonna happen. There isn't enough corn in America, not even if we planted corn on every available acre. There aren't enough biofuels, not even if we harvested every drop of vegetable oil used in every restaurant in America.<BR/><BR/>The <I><B>only</B></I> practical near-term alterantive is electric cars and light electric rail. And the only reasonable way to generate enough terawatts to run light electric rail and 150 million electric cars in America with technology that exists <I><B>here, now, in the real world</B></I> is nuclear power.<BR/><BR/>You can blow smoke about solar power, but it's all fantasy. This is not a real deployable large-scale commercial technology yet. Show me the operating gigawatt solar plants. Whoops! You can't. There are none. All we've got is a few tiny experimental solar pilot plants. There is <B>no</B> solar equivalent of the San Onofre plant that generates 1.03 gigawatts commercially for the city fo Los Angeles. Meanwhile, we have operating multi-gigawatt nuclear power plants on the ground, running, now, in multiple places throughout the united states.<BR/><BR/><I><B>We need to get off our asses and get started kicking our oil addiction NOW.</B></I> We can't afford to start 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 years now. 30 years from now is too goddamn late.<BR/><BR/>Show me the practical working alternative to nuclear power for providing enough electricity fast enough to power light electric rail and electric cars throughout the United States, and I'll jump at it. There isn't any. Nuclear power is it. If we want to move to electric cars and light electric rail as mass transportation in America, we <B>musc</B> build nuclear power plants, and lots of 'em.<BR/><BR/>The option other than moving out of gas-guzzling cars and into light electric rail + electric cars for personal transporatation and commuting in the United States is a much bigger job, and quite impractical in the near term. <B>And we need to talk about the near term, the next 30 years is crucial. Fantasies and pipe dreams about technologies that might materialize 100 or 200 years from now are bullshit, it'll be too late then, because all the oil will be GONE.</B><BR/><BR/>The alternative is totally redesigning all American cities and suburbs to make it possible for people to use bicycles to commute to work or to make it possible for people to walk to work.<BR/><BR/>That's a gigantic job. It involves knocking down all big American cities and rebuilding 'em from scratch, also ripping up and plowing under all American suburbs and replacing 'em with urban dwellings situated so that you don't have to use a car to get to work.<BR/><BR/>That's not practical in the near term. I hear politicians talking about builoding nuclear plants and building electric cars and extensing light rail, but I don't hear any politicains talking abotu knocking down every large American city and every American suburb with a wrecking ball and rebuilding them all from scratch so we can live without cars. We don't hear any politicians talking about that because it's ridiculous in the near term, it's just completely unrealistic. Tens of millions of Americans are not willing to exit their homes and live in tent cities for 20 years while every American urban core and every American suburb is bulldozed and rebuilt. <B>And that's the only other option to replacing gas-guzzling cars with electric light rail or electric cars. Either we knock down and redesign all our cities and suburbs so we can live without cars, or we switch to electric cars. That's it. Those are the ONLY two options.</B><BR/><BR/>Building 800-plus nuclear reactors in the next 30 years is a titantic job. Ripping down and rebuilding all big American cities and rebuilding 'em so we don't need cars to commute with within the next 30 years is a mind-boggling job, it's frankly just not realistic. <BR/><BR/>Show me how we get out of our oil addiciton using <I><B>technology that exists right here, right now</B></I> without using nuclear power. <BR/><BR/>You can't. All this blue-sky bullshit about solar-photoelectric and solar-selectric is great, but c'mon! Get real. Bulding even 1/10 of the solar-photoelectric panels we'd need would exhaust the entire world's supply of indium, and we don't even remotely have the battery technology to store all that electricity. A solar panel isn't like a nuclear power plant, you can crank electricity generation up and down with a nuclear power plant to compensate for changing demand. With a solar power plant, you generate electricty continuously when the sun shines and get nothing at night, so you <B>must</B> store huge amounts of electricity. <BR/><BR/>Solar just isn't here yet. It isn't anywhere <B>near</B> ready, despite what anyone tells you. The technology involved in solar is many many years away from being practical and production-ready to builod out all over America in commercial power plants. I would guess solar is at least 40 to 70 years away from being ready to ramp up into commercial large-scale deployment, and that's being generous.<BR/><BR/>Nuclear power is ready <B>today</B>.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80420232863146352482008-08-25T06:43:00.000-07:002008-08-25T06:43:00.000-07:00Waste storage is also an issue that is quite trick...<I>Waste storage is also an issue that is quite tricky to solve. Even if we used breeder reactors, there is simply massive amounts of low level waste generated along with small quantities of very nasty stuff. Dealing with the low level waste (stuff ranging from suits and gloves to tools equipment and even building materials) is very costly. The high level long lived waste we aren't even sure how to deal with (though there are decent ideas... they all have open questions left.)</I><BR/><BR/>"Massive amounts" is really a loose word when referring to low-level radioactive waste. Let us not forget that nuclear medicine also contributes "massive amounts" of low-level radioactive waste as well. Realistically, this is not too strenuous of a problem to solve as it only requires short term isolation. While still a concern, it is something we are going to have to deal with from other industries (namely medicine) as well.<BR/><BR/>I agree, the longer term storage of spent nuclear fuel is a much bigger issue and unique to commercial nuclear power. The real issue of the used fuel is that it contains the following: uranium, fission products, plutonium, and minor actinides.<BR/><BR/>The first one is not really an environmental hazard as it was dug out of the ground initially. The fission products require isolation but have short (~days - decades) half-lives, but constructing engineered barriers for these are fairly easy. The last two are the real components with half-lives that are long, but short enough to cause a major concern.<BR/><BR/>The options are long-term geologic isolation or destruction in a fast spectrum reactor. The latter requires chemical separation, which is expensive and could have proliferation concerns outside major industrialized nuclear states. However, cycles are being developed which do not isolate pure Pu, the concern for proliferation. Also, as costs of other energy sources rise and extraction technology improves, the economics for recycling look better.<BR/><BR/>As far as long-term geologic disposal, there are two real options. The first is disposal underground. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad, NM is located in salt deposits and does dispose of defense waste quite well and technical analysis shows it to be suitable for long-term storage. Another option is disposal of vitrified waste packages in subduction zones; extensive studies on the matter have shown the idea to be technically sound with minimal environmental impact. The disadvantage is that it would require modifications to current international laws.<BR/><BR/>While it is a definite and vital concern we cannot dismiss, the problem is not, at present, urgent and we have time to look for solutions. The current volume of used nuclear fuel (non-recycled) in the US would fit into a football stadium stacked the height of three floors of a typical office building or home. Getting off of coal (a real unmanageable waste problem) is a higher priority in my mind.<BR/><BR/><I>Just to add to the fun, the tailings tend to get adsorbed preferentially into the environment.</I><BR/><BR/>On the issue of mining, uranium tailings are a concern. However, when compared to the environmental impacts of coal mining, it is very small. Also, renewables still require mining as well. Solar PVs require the mining of exotic materials and even wind turbines require copious amounts of iron, chromium, copper, etc.<BR/><BR/>Conservation and efficiency are the only real "energy source" that does not require any mining. Nonetheless, it can only take us so far and eventually, we will need to expand the infrastructure.<BR/><BR/>As for PuO2 (a ceramic that is fairly insoluble), while I wouldn't want to be around large quantities for an extended period of time, it is hardly the most dangerous industrial substance we handle. First of all, it is (obviously) not mined but produced synthetically so we do not have the extraction impacts. Of course, we do the same with many materials far more toxic and in far greater quantities than PuO2 will likely ever exist. While, yes, we should handle it safely in any fuel recycle system, it is not something that presents overly difficult burdens.<BR/><BR/><I>Hell, we could prevent the need for half your projected plants just by getting the rest of the country to adopt Californias energy saving practices.</I><BR/><BR/>I am somewhat skeptical that we can continue to grow our GDP on these policies. The net result has been energy savings in California, but at a cost of displacing business. While I do advocate conservation where it is feasible, the California laws have really only caused corporations to move to other regions of the country, or other countries.<BR/><BR/>So yes, we do need conservation and efficiency standards. However, we must be careful that they do more than merely displace the problem elsewhere.<BR/><BR/><I>Most of the country could fully power an electric commuting vehicle right now during off-peak hours with no grid expansion.</I><BR/><BR/>Source? I have heard an energy analyst (I would have to dig up the name) disagree with this -- according to an LLNL (I believe) study, we would need to build over 100, 1000 MWe plants to sustain an economy where everyone bought a plug-in hybrid. Even at off-peak loads, we still have to account for the 24/7 baseload requirements. <BR/><BR/><I>"Operating Cost" numbers pimped by pro-nuke outfits tend to entirely ignore decomissioning cost, waste disposal, and more.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, but it does include these things. The price of (US) nuclear generated electricity does include a waste disposal tax and the decommissioning costs must be paid for during operation. Unfortunately, nuclear is the only energy source, to my knowledge, no other energy source in the US is required, by law, to do this.Brian Claymorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017976415908934264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30363915213148012962008-08-25T02:23:00.000-07:002008-08-25T02:23:00.000-07:00Zorgon, Genuinely meaning no offense, oil has F-al...Zorgon, <BR/><BR/>Genuinely meaning no offense, oil has F-all to do with electricty generation in the US, other than as a lubricant.<BR/><BR/>Most of the country could fully power an electric commuting vehicle right now during off-peak hours with no grid expansion.<BR/><BR/>Hell, we could prevent the need for half your projected plants just by getting the rest of the country to adopt Californias energy saving practices.<BR/><BR/>There is no getting around several facts, though, one of which is that SAFE nuclear power is expensive and requires massive capital outlay. <BR/><BR/>"Operating Cost" numbers pimped by pro-nuke outfits tend to entirely ignore decomissioning cost, waste disposal, and more.<BR/><BR/>I've got absolutely nothing against us getting a 50 MW pebble-bed reactor up and running, although the kind of centralization required to go "all nuclear" would not be a good idea.<BR/><BR/>One nut with a rifle or some homemade explosives can take 50 MW off-line for half a day. There is no getting around it. <BR/><BR/>Building them big is the only way they're cost-effective, and it makes us very vulnerable.<BR/><BR/>You get a lot farther by not assuming that all objections come from people with fantasies of power plants turning into A-bombs. <BR/><BR/>It's irrelevant to compare the cost of Nuclear Energy to the future cost of oil. We don't make electricty from oil.<BR/><BR/>The valid comparisons are natural gas and coal *IF* we're not talking global warming, but rather just cost. We've got both of them in spades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-37302577624469664162008-08-25T00:44:00.000-07:002008-08-25T00:44:00.000-07:00Jester and the rest of you guys who complain that ...Jester and the rest of you guys who complain that nuclear power is much more expensive than current alternatives:<BR/><BR/>You're not getting it.<BR/><BR/>This isn't just about dealing with Peak Oil. It's about ending America's oil addiction so we don't have to maintain a gigantic military apparatus to sustain access to middle east oil and twist our society all out of shape into a militarized garrison police state in the process.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, you guys aren't looking ahead. Economics is a <I><B>dynamic</B></I> system, not a static one. Building the kind of nuclear power plants we're going to need to wean ourselves off serious dependence on foreign oil, even if we start <B>today</B>, will take <B>at least</B> 20 or 30 years.<BR/><BR/>How much do you think a barrel of oil will cost in 30 years?<BR/><BR/>I don't know. And neither does any other economist. Anyone who claims they can make a reliable prediction is lying. But I can tell you this much -- economists predicted $120 a barrel oil 5 years ago, but only in the most wildly improbable "worse case" terrorism scenarios, far-out contingencies like terrorists blowing up the pipelines that supply oil shipping ports in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. 5 years ago, nobody <I><B>ever</B></I> predicted $140 a barrel oil. <BR/><BR/>If we don't get off our asses <I><B>now</B></I>, it's going to be too late 20 or 30 years from now, when the crunch really hits hard and we're completely out of options.<BR/><BR/>Don't tell me nuclear power is too expensive now. Prove to me nuclear power will be too expensive when our power plants come online in 2040 and oil costs $1000 a barrel and instead of being able to buy General Motors with 4 months of their Sovereign Wealth Fund income, the Saudis can buy General Motors with 4 <I><B>hours</B></I> of oil income.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91341048773381241962008-08-25T00:06:00.000-07:002008-08-25T00:06:00.000-07:00Just to add to the fun, the tailings tend to get a...Just to add to the fun, the tailings tend to get adsorbed preferentially into the environment.<BR/>(BTW before anyone downplays the hazards of Plutonium: while pure Pu is as innocuous as pure Hg, reactors tend to use PuO2, which is another kettle of poisson entirely)<BR/><BR/>Of course, if it was simply a choice between coal or nuclear... well, we know the backstory, and there wouldn't be a choice!<BR/><BR/>Since this little scrub fire was bought on in the spirit of good news I'll point out that, even if you dismiss solar, wind, tidal and gerbil power as too diffuse, there's still <A HREF="http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html" REL="nofollow">hot rocks</A><BR/><BR/>(which, I suppose, is nuclear in origin as well... but it's *natural*, see?;-)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84889722732834932612008-08-24T23:49:00.000-07:002008-08-24T23:49:00.000-07:00tintinaus, good point. And the tailings from uran...tintinaus, good point. And the tailings from uranium mining itself aren't exactly nice either.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8079833542060905792008-08-24T22:39:00.000-07:002008-08-24T22:39:00.000-07:00Coming from a country that is an exporter of urani...Coming from a country that is an exporter of uranium(Australia), waste is something that I am very conscious about. Our late govt was a believer in nuclear(egged on by the mining interests more than anything else), and part of the national debate was that countries we sold to were offering higher prices for the ore if we promised to take the waste back. If France, the US and Japan don't want to deal with nuclear waste instead choosing to dump it my backyard, that waste is a problem with a capital P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-882433276625633862008-08-24T21:42:00.000-07:002008-08-24T21:42:00.000-07:00Zorg, 'meltdowns' are pretty low on the list of pr...Zorg, 'meltdowns' are pretty low on the list of problems with nuclear power. Pebble-bed reactors don't address all the safety problems, much less the systemic ones. Leaks of irradiated heat-transfer agent, especially releases forced by overpressure are most 'accidents'.<BR/><BR/>And safety isn't even the biggest problem. The economics of nuclear don't work very well. It just isn't the most cost effective approach in most cases (even when just selecting between 'green' options.)<BR/><BR/>Waste storage is also an issue that is quite tricky to solve. Even if we used breeder reactors, there is simply massive amounts of low level waste generated along with small quantities of very nasty stuff. Dealing with the low level waste (stuff ranging from suits and gloves to tools equipment and even building materials) is very costly. The high level long lived waste we aren't even sure how to deal with (though there are decent ideas... they all have open questions left.)<BR/><BR/>Nuclear power isn't the bogeyman, but it isn't a silver bullet either. The known side effects of a massive build up of nuclear power generating capacity are pretty hard to deal with... the unintended consequences could well be horrendous.<BR/><BR/>BTW: IMO the greatest 'side-effect' of alternative power is diversification. This alone would be enough to argue against nuclear-power uberalis.<BR/><BR/>PS: I should add that the idea of France's nuclear power as some sort of energy production farsightedness is a bit silly. France really loved making and testing nuclear bombs not too long ago. A big part of their nuclear power industry is a spinoff of their weapons programme.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56240314391996409062008-08-24T21:40:00.000-07:002008-08-24T21:40:00.000-07:00I find the article about Uranium to be intriguing....<I>I find the article about Uranium to be intriguing. Why has it been sat on for twenty five years? Has anyone demonstrated the actual extraction of Uranium from seawater?</I><BR/><BR/>Primarily because we have had plentiful and dirt cheap uranium from conventional resources and decomissioned nuclear weapons. Even into the foreseeable future, uranium reserves are sufficient and there will be no economic drive to seawater; although technically it is possible. <BR/><BR/>All due respect to Zorgon, but I think he gives the antinuclear movement far too much credit. While it certainly did not help, more of the reason nuclear power fell out of favor was really due to economics: slower growth combined with very cheap coal and natural gas. Of course, over the last 5 years or so, this equation has changed and hence the renewed interest.<BR/><BR/><I>Concerns about the waste products of breeder plants aside, I also have concerns about the centralised nature of these power plants. I think there is going to increasing social tensions as 'distributed' adopters of things like rooftop solar get 'encouraged' not to in favour of business as usual power bills.</I><BR/><BR/>As the decentralized technologies become available, we should definitely adopt them where economically feasible. However, this does not eliminate the requirement for reliable baseload power. Solar and wind work great for the residential and rural sectors. Things like nuclear, fossil fuels, and hydropower work great for industrial and urban sectors. In short, we will need both.<BR/><BR/>As for the waste issue, while great care needs to be taken, it is a very small problem compared to the waste produced from fossil fuels. Full lifecycle analyses of power sources show nuclear's footprint to be competitive with other renewables. Future recycling of used nuclear fuel will dramatically reduce the problem of disposal.<BR/><BR/><I>Nuclear power isn't cheap, and the cash to build it costs a hell of a lot to access.</I><BR/><BR/>This is definitely nuclear power's biggest disadvantage. However, the energy output and profitability of a nuclear plant are very high. The issue is that building one requires a high financial risk, especially in today's climate of a new and untested regulatory environment. <BR/><BR/>For this reason, I think loan guarantees (current US policy) are a suitable program to encourage business to invest in this technology. Of course, if fossil fuels had to pay for the disposal of all waste produced during operation as nuclear does, the equation would be totally different.Brian Claymorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017976415908934264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73080001562925990392008-08-24T21:36:00.000-07:002008-08-24T21:36:00.000-07:00Dang!What's been done to Z! Did Brin send over hi...Dang!<BR/><BR/>What's been done to Z! Did Brin send over his minions and replace him with a "militant moderate" pod person?<BR/><BR/>;-)<BR/><BR/>I'm starting to really like this guy...David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74361018269802137752008-08-24T21:28:00.000-07:002008-08-24T21:28:00.000-07:00Nuclear power isn't cheap, and the cash to build i...Nuclear power isn't cheap, and the cash to build it costs a hell of a lot to access.<BR/><BR/>However, it's a waste of time to try to explain that to a blindly commited enthusiast. Somehow, magically, it would suddenly be cheap...athough it never has been...anywhere.<BR/><BR/>No, let's ignore the capital cost and only look at the operating cost, then call those who point out the flaws in our arguments paranoid leftist radicals. <BR/><BR/>On the political side -<BR/><BR/>Has anyone considered that <BR/><BR/>Clinton has demanded a floor vote<BR/><BR/>Bill will be speaking right before the vote takes place.<BR/><BR/>Florida and Michigan have now been given full votes and full delegations, penalty free<BR/><BR/>Obama will not even be in town when the vote takes place<BR/><BR/>Clintons "suspended" campaign has been going to great lengths to ensure all of her delegates are there?<BR/><BR/>Slim chance of an outright puscht, greater chance of Clinton trying to claim she "really won" the Pledged Delegate count and that SuperDelegates stole it from her, casting a smear on Obamas legitimacy.<BR/><BR/>We shall see in three days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3499269076402852912008-08-24T21:16:00.000-07:002008-08-24T21:16:00.000-07:00Dr Brin, your argument about government profession...Dr Brin, your argument about government professionals is getting better honed. I'd humbly offer a few suggestions.<BR/><BR/>In the list of agencies undermined, Interior, FEMA, and CIA should be included. <BR/><BR/>Interior is a bit wonky and not on most people's map, but the kleptocratic exploitation there outshines any other. FEMA is an obvious one. It went from being the model of effective good government (even Bush said so in the 2000 debates) to, well we all remember. And CIA is more of a symbol for the entire 'faith based' intelligence community BushCo (esp Cheney) created... an angle to the problem which should rightly elicit some outright fear.<BR/><BR/>Also, it would be good to mention that the minds which brought us the Liberty college DoJ and Brownie's FEMA are the same ones who created the one of the largest and most powerful government agencies ever to exist... DHS. Not only are their incompetents and political hacks to root out, the very structure of DHS is designed to fail (while fleecing the taxpayers out of billions of dollars).Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-24239632067996355752008-08-24T20:48:00.000-07:002008-08-24T20:48:00.000-07:00Tony Fisk asked: "Why has this article [about nucl...Tony Fisk asked: <I>"Why has this article [about nuclear breeder reactors using uranium extracted from seawater providing power for the next 5 billion years at double the current global energy usage while adding only 1% to current energy costs] been sat on for 25 years?"</I><BR/><BR/>Because of the anti-nuclear hysteria of the Anglo-American left.<BR/><BR/>Everyone focuses on the destruction of western civilization wrought by the far right, and indeed they have plenty to answer for, what with cronyism, corruption, creationism, hatred of rationality, etc. -- but the left has a lot to answer for too. They successfully killed nuclear power as an industry and fomented mindless hysteria against <I><B>any</B></I> kind of nuclear power. Breeder reactors as well as light water reactors, HTGC pebble bed designs that <I><B>can't</B></I> melt down as well as the older Hanford light water designs that can.<BR/><BR/>If you want to know why American and British troops are dying in Iraq, look to the Anglo-American left. If we'd cranked up nuclear power as described in that 1983 article to the point where we had enough cheap electricity to run electric light rail and electric cars and kick our oil addiction as Jimmy Carter proposed back in 1980, we wouldn't need to care about the middle east. We could let the fanatical Shiites and the fanatical wahabis kill each other and we wouldn't have to give a damn. <BR/><BR/>Thank the Anglo-American left for our current oil addiction. It's not popular to say that, but thems the facts.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-38003638741045656322008-08-24T20:13:00.000-07:002008-08-24T20:13:00.000-07:00Interesting point, Stefan.I find the article about...Interesting point, Stefan.<BR/><BR/>I find the article about Uranium to be intriguing. Why has it been sat on for twenty five years? Has anyone demonstrated the actual extraction of Uranium from seawater?<BR/><BR/>And *why* does Japan need 195 million tonnes of the stuff? Is their government planning to adopt Vista or something?<BR/><BR/>Concerns about the waste products of breeder plants aside, I also have concerns about the centralised nature of these power plants. I think there is going to increasing social tensions as 'distributed' adopters of things like rooftop solar get 'encouraged' not to in favour of business as usual power bills.<BR/><BR/>This little <A HREF="http://www.theage.com.au/national/desal-and-water-tank-wars-20080824-41et.htm" REL="nofollow">storm in a teacup(?)</A> is an example of what I mean. I suppose it's an example of the amateur vs professional thing.Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82888052020048582872008-08-24T19:55:00.000-07:002008-08-24T19:55:00.000-07:00The fundamental that folks fall back upon, when tr...The fundamental that folks fall back upon, when trying to convince Hallary supporters to get fired up for BHO, is the Supreme Court. Certainly, enough reason, by itself, to vote even for the proverbial Yellow Dog.<BR/><BR/>But I routinely mention something that I consider far more important, and an argument that should motivate conservatives, as well.<BR/><BR/>For eight years, THE principal project of the Bushites has been the repression, gelding and evisceration of the United States Civil Service. We hear of political hacks re-writing scientific reports and interference with US Attorneys. But this is the tip of a huge iceberg. Wall Street cheaters feared the state of New York (under state AG Spitzer) far more than they feared the SEC. The FBI and Justice have been cut off at the knees. <BR/><BR/>Every agency from the EPA to FDA to Agriculture has been stocked with more stooges - either moronically unqualified or outright venial - than at any point since Chester Arthur campaigned against the Spoils System. Even the US Military Officer Corps has been brutalized by clueless, meddling political hatchet men. It is this deliberate effort to systematically destroy the effectiveness of government that has to be reversed, asap.<BR/><BR/>Mind you, some might attribute this relentless campaign to ideology - a belief that government is bad, and therefore should be made to fail. I believe that's absurd. This effort has gone far beyond that, with only two possible explanations remaining. Either (1) a need for repressed government so that - like some predatory virus sneaking past an enfeebled immune system - thieves can rob us blind... or (2) direct treason, with the intent of harming the United States and its people.<BR/><BR/>The former is blatantly obvious. But dig it. Though it sounds utterly delusional/paranoid, the latter explanation is actually the only scenario that is utterly consistent with all behavior and facts. After all, mere thieves would want some rule of law, if only for America to be a decent place to live and spend money!<BR/><BR/>In any event, it is this one quest - to restore the civil service to functioning capably, efficiently, with high morale - that should take higher priority than any assertive legislative agenda that BHO might have. It won't be easy - many Bush political appointees have done the sideways shift - inserting themselves into protected Civil Service slots. It may take a fight to ease some of them out.<BR/><BR/>But this is an issue that can be put in front of decent conservatives as a reason to cut the Republicans off, whether or not they "like McCain." Because while you might fantacize he is a "maverick," you cannot be so deluded to imagine he won't pick appointments from the same pool of horrendous, monstrously corrupted ingroup shills, the names that K Street will present to ANY GOP president for rubber stamping, so the vampiric blood draining can continue, until America falls over, close to death.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-6821965104025653472008-08-24T18:42:00.000-07:002008-08-24T18:42:00.000-07:00George Orwell himself knew that Oceania wouldn't l...George Orwell himself knew that Oceania wouldn't last forever:<BR/><BR/>The afterward about Newspeak describes the Party's plan for the language in the <I>past tense</I>.<BR/><BR/>And it is not written in Newspeak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47988946485000711872008-08-24T14:53:00.000-07:002008-08-24T14:53:00.000-07:00Sociotard, while I agree that the world "literally...Sociotard, while I agree that the world "literally" is at best unnecessary in that sentence (and is often abused), Biden didn't say "change the course of the _planet_". "The world" can refer to lots of different things...<BR/><BR/>...such as that part of the physical state of the planet which we usually refer to these days as "the environment". Which Obama (or McCain) is definitely going to be in a position to change.Joshua O'Madadhainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02305095335471811013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11828235063833461472008-08-24T14:33:00.000-07:002008-08-24T14:33:00.000-07:00More good news:Here, for your delectation, are som...More good news:<BR/><BR/>Here, for your delectation, are some 1983 calculations showing that uranium extracted from seawater as an energy source in breeder reactors would last for 5 billion years at double the current world electricity usage.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.sustainablenuclear.org/PADs/pad11983cohen.pdf" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Speaking of extracting uranium from seawater...Japan plans to extract 195 million tons of uranium from seawater uisng genetically modified seaweed. Here's the pdf:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.uknow.or.jp/be_e/science/science_news/200802news.pdf" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>New measurements of carbon nanotubes show them to be as strong as theoretically predicted. Good news, since earlier measurements incorrectly showed them to be much weaker than predicted. Plus, irradiating carbon nanotubes makes them stronger. This might produce a material strong enough to build the space elevator. Once we get space elevators, it's off to the races. The price of putting a pound in orbit drops to the approximate cost of electricity required to lift it, somewhere in the neighborhood of $40 per pound at current electricity prices.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/nu-tpo081508.php" REL="nofollow">Link.</A> <BR/><BR/>More <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/10/health.cancer" REL="nofollow">revolutionary new cancer treatments</A> announced. Also, new <A HREF="http://www.fightaging.org/archives/001547.php" REL="nofollow">arthritis vaccine looks promising.</A> I'm no expert, but it looks like the radical new cancer breakthroughs have shifted gears from once every five years to once every few months. Starting to look like we've exited the flat startup slope of the biotechnology exponential curve and we're now starting up the sharp knee of exponential progress.<BR/><BR/>Scientists have stopped the aging process in an entire organ for the first time.<BR/><A HREF="http://technutnews.com/2008/08/21/scientists-stop-the-ageing-process/" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>The World Bank estimates that the global middle class will grow from 430 million today to 1.15 billion by 2030. Here's a striking statistic for you: today the developing world accounts for 56% of the world's middle class, but by 2030, it will account for 93%. Gee, d'you think corporate marketing is going to change over the next 20 years...?<BR/><A HREF="http://www.nextbillion.net/newsroom/2008/07/16/the-new-global-middle-class-potentially-profitable-but-also-unpredictable" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Oregon-based semiconductor startup announces 3D chip breakthrough.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.edn.com/article/CA6587277.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>New flat-panel refrigerator works by periodically applying an electric field to long-chain polymers.<BR/><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7568035.stm" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>You <I><B>really</B></I> know you're in the 21st century when you hear about a protest organized against spychips in your underwear.<BR/>So I guess we'll all be spending the evening with a hammer bashing our girlfriends' undies to smash up the spychips. Until, of course, they make it illegal to walk around sans functioning spychips in your underwear.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.knowthelies.com/?q=node/2507" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Listening to music can boost your immunse system and help fight off disease.<BR/><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7566566.stm" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Here's a great article about the likelihood that augmented reality will wind up infested with spam and malware. Great news insofar as it injects some common sense in discussions of Augmented Reality, unlike the absurdly rosy-eyed novel <I>Rainbows End</I>L by the abysmal fool Vernor Vinge.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.openthefuture.com/2008/08/making_the_visible_invisible.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>The workers may soon own the means of production, but not by taking over the factories -- they're doing it by using rapreps.<BR/><I>"Browse the catalog on the left to find a design you like. View the design in the interactive 3D Viewer. Customize it in the amazing 3D Customizer. Share your customized design on the site. Buy the object, and we'll make it for you with our fantastic 3D Printers!"</I><BR/>This is obviously a crude early stage using flimsy plastic. At some point in the foreseeable future, these rapreps will start using carbon nanotubes, and then it's off to the races, and farewell to capitalism as we've known it for the last 250 years.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.zapfab.com" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Open-source replacements for hotels and buses: <A HREF="http://airbedandbreakfast.com/" REL="nofollow">AirBed and breakfast</A> and <A HREF="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4406" REL="nofollow">iHitch.</A><BR/>At present iHitch remains just an idea, rather than a real open-source project, but as gasoline skyrockets toward $10 a gallon, it's inevitable that something like iHitch will turn into reality. ON a smaller scale, various cities around the U.S. have already started <A HREF="http://www.technologyreview.com/Wire/21248/?nlid=1271&a=f" REL="nofollow">metro carpooling websites</A>. <BR/><BR/>Emerging cognitive neuroscience and related technologies: an overview.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12177&page=R1" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>And here's a skeptical contrary view of current neuroscience imaging techniques.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/08/17/picturing_our_thoughts/?page=full" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>The RAND corporation published essays on 11 overlooked issues on the horizon soon to wreak a huge impact on our society. These eerily prefigure the subjects I've been raising here:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/summer2008/horizon.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Jury nullification in non-violent drug trials seems to be <A HREF="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1719872,00.html" REL="nofollow">an idea whose time has come</A>. But now <A HREF="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/14/juror-becomes-fly-in-the-ointment/" REL="nofollow">a judge has taken the extraordinary step of identifying a "problem" juror who appeared to be refusing to accept anti-drug statutes as legal, replaced him, and got the verdict desired by the prosecution</A>.<BR/>As Scooby Doo would say: "Ruh roh!"<BR/><BR/>In the fight to shut down America's crazy war against drugs, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win (as Ghandi remarked). This is good news insofar as it suggests we've reached the "then they fight you" stage of pushback against the insane and unusustainable war against America's bill of rights (misnamed the "war on drugs").<BR/><A HREF="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/08/14/juror-becomes-fly-in-the-ointment/" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>An increase in unjust and/or unconstitutional laws in recent years has produced a big jump in the number of trials ending in hung juries. In some jurisdictions, 20% of all trials end in hung juries.<BR/><I>The most concrete sign of the trend is the sharp jump in the percentage of trials that end in hung juries. For decades, a 5 percent hung jury rate was considered the norm, derived from a landmark study of the American jury by Harry Kalven Jr. and Hans Zeisel published 30 years ago. In recent years, however, that figure has doubled and quadrupled, depending on location. Some local courts in California, for example, have reported more than 20 percent of trials ending in hung juries. Federal criminal cases in Washington, D.C., averaged 15 percent hung juries in 1996 (the most recent year for which data were available), three times the rate in 1991.<BR/>A hung jury is simply one in which the 12 men and women around the table disagree over whether to convict or acquit. But judges, lawyers and others who study the phenomenon suspect that more and more differences are erupting not over the evidence in these cases, but over whether the law being broken is fair.</I><BR/><A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/jury080299.htm" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Federal court rules prosepctive passngers can challenge the no-fly list. How this is possible when the law itself is secret, they haven't explained.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/18/BA2212DEQU.DTL" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Judge rules man can't be forced to divulge encryption passphrase to prosecutors to unlock his encrypted hard drive.<BR/><A HREF="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9834495-38.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Huge win for free speech on the intrenet -- judge rules content owners must consuider fair use when calling for a DMCA takedown:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/judge-rules-content-owners-must-consider-fair-use-" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Repubs are now so far gone they've been reduced to fearmongering about the projected non-white majority in America by 2040. Apparently, <A HREF="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjdiMzgzZjJkNDUyOTY5ZjgzYTE2MjUyYmUxMDk4NWM=" REL="nofollow">America will be a sea of non-caucasian retards in 2040</A>. Why do we even need The Onion? The Repubs make satire unnecessary.<BR/>Of course, the collapse of the middle class's earning power couldn't be because of the predatory loan practices and sadistic greed of giant corporations which have relentlessly outsourced high-paying American jobs while jacking up credit card rates in their corporate finance divisions, could it><BR/>Noooooooooo, nooooooooooooooo, that's couldn't <I><B>possibly</B></I> be the problem with declining middle class earning in America. No, it's all the black peoples' fault because they're too stupid to make good employees. Them, and the alleged mental defectiveness of Latinos.<BR/>Hey, Repubs, way to go in your voter outreach to those non-white voting groups...<BR/><BR/>Insightful article about the Culture War.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080623/robin" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>Most spectacular beatdown ever penned of the wretched far-right intellectual whore David Brooks:<BR/><A HREF="http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/22/intellectual_usury_feels_good/" REL="nofollow">This wonderful article</A> is the equivalent of not just watching David Brooks get convicted and sent to prison and having 50 black guys line up outside his cell to ass-pound him, but of having sold David Brooks to said gentlemen of colour for a carton of smokes.<BR/><BR/>A particularly provocative critique of Obama's supporters. Far lefties will hate it, the rest of us will find it illuminating.<BR/><A HREF="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=697&Itemid=34" REL="nofollow">Link.</A><BR/><BR/>"Why Goerge Orwell was wrong"<BR/><A HREF="http://www.spectacle.org/496/orwell.html" REL="nofollow">Link.</A>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10994509912655287453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25609942830702786442008-08-24T01:25:00.000-07:002008-08-24T01:25:00.000-07:00Verily?Man, threads on this blog always double in ...Verily?<BR/><BR/>Man, threads on this blog always double in length when you're away, no matter their previous length.David McCabehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16603857353437134459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61266557886207426762008-08-24T00:05:00.000-07:002008-08-24T00:05:00.000-07:00Sociotard... The 'literally' thing bugs me too, bu...Sociotard... The 'literally' thing bugs me too, but what is the proper word/phrase to use? (I really want to know.)<BR/><BR/>It gets misused so often because it is useful to rhetorically signal a case where the metaphor is more apt than normal.Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-23881435361930310792008-08-23T23:32:00.000-07:002008-08-23T23:32:00.000-07:00*groan* Biden isn't a bad choice for VP (well, no...*groan* Biden isn't a bad choice for VP (well, not the worst possible choice anyway), but <A HREF="http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc030107KS.html" REL="nofollow">he just commited </A>a pet-peeve grammar error:<BR/><BR/><I>"This is the most opportune moment to be President of the United States. The next President has the opportunity to literally change the direction of the world."</I><BR/><BR/>No, Senator Biden, he does not. He has the opportunity to change the direction of the world metaphorically. (maybe) Literally changing the direction of the world is the province of heroes from Krypton.<BR/><BR/>"Literally" is to be used to mean "I am not using metaphor or hyperbole, but speaking plainly". There's nothing wrong with hyperbole or metaphor, I just detest using the word the opposite of the way it is supposed to be used. This is very nearly a Bushism.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60442585786616030022008-08-23T20:23:00.000-07:002008-08-23T20:23:00.000-07:00How exactly does that happen?well with great diffi...How exactly does that happen?<BR/>well with great difficulty but it is more likely than an individual country smashing all of it's corporations into little bits and I suggest causing massive capital flight whilst making themselves uncompetitive.<BR/><BR/>As to why the US has a problem - I think they have a system prone to corruption. It is a matter of fixing the leaks in the house rather than stopping it from ever raining.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35165759739973381312008-08-23T14:51:00.000-07:002008-08-23T14:51:00.000-07:00genius said...the solution to global companies is ...<I>genius said...<BR/>the solution to global companies is not to make all companies local, it is for governments to cooperate as opposed to just competing.</I><BR/><BR/>How exactly does that happen? If a corporation is allowed to hire a politician or "donate" to his election -- you are only a few hundred thousand dollars away from that politician -- or some politician, giving away the store to the corporation.<BR/><BR/>The return on investment is about 1,000 to 1. The best investment there is -- buy a politician.<BR/><BR/>If the powers of corporations are limited -- so is their influence. If a corporation gets a certain amount of power -- they are going to be running governments. Notice the USA recently?Fake_William_Shatnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027049743048836086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3548522437134802782008-08-23T01:02:00.000-07:002008-08-23T01:02:00.000-07:00Digby has a post including a very good figure desc...Digby has a post including a very good figure describing the tax plans put forth by McCain and Obama. It is really very clear.<BR/><A HREF="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/american-dream-x-treme-by-digby-richard.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>Travchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790548845692414891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78122125120853428852008-08-22T22:24:00.000-07:002008-08-22T22:24:00.000-07:00the solution to global companies is not to make al...the solution to global companies is not to make all companies local, it is for governments to cooperate as opposed to just competing.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.com