Category Archives: old tired advice

Nuclear Power Is The Future – Probably not…

Posted on by
2

People who tout Nukes as the Future take for granted that there is fuel out there.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421123231.htm

Questioning Nuclear Power’s

Ability

To Forestall Global Warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a new study.

    In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the “eco-efficiency” of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.

The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel’s environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future — a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

“The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,” the authors say. “These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.”
 

Don’t believe me? What about the guys and gals at MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080201furber-warf-plotkin.php

Or maybe the the Australian Monthly Review?

The following article on “The Future of Nuclear Power” by Robert D. Furber, James C. Warf, and Sheldon C. Plotkin, scientists with a long history of addressing this issue, seeks to lay bare the realities of nuclear power. Although much more difficult to read than the typical MR article, we encourage all of our readers to study it closely. Its conclusion?: “any building of new [nuclear] plants would be a serious mistake….the future of nuclear power, as we know it, is very poor at best.”

The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals to resort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make a dent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth, generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. The most important principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn to nuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.—Ed.

:}
:}

Are You Feeling Lucky, Punk? I had never tried the Feeling Lucky google search

Posted on by
Reply

It always felt kinda silly to me. But it’s a nice day out and I frankly wanted to go outside. So I thought I could get a quick post by typing in ENERGY CONSERVATION and click Feeling Lucky. You talk about a buzz kill.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conservation

Energy conservation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about decreasing energy consumption. For the law of conservation of energy in physics, see Conservation of energy.

Globe icon

 The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Energy conservation is the practice of decreasing the quantity of energy used. It may be achieved through efficient energy use, in which case energy use is decreased while achieving a similar outcome, or by reduced consumption of energy services. Energy conservation may result in increase of financial capital, environmental value, national security, personal security, and human comfort. Individuals and organizations that are direct consumers of energy may want to conserve energy in order to reduce energy costs and promote economic security. Industrial and commercial users may want to increase efficiency and thus maximize profit.

Energy conservation is an important element of energy policy. Energy conservation reduces the energy consumption and energy demand per capita, and thus offsets the growth in energy supply needed to keep up with population growth. This reduces the rise in energy costs, and can reduce the need for new power plants, and energy imports. The reduced energy demand can provide more flexibility in choosing the most preferred methods of energy production.

By reducing emissions, energy conservation is an important part of lessening climate change. Energy conservation facilitates the replacement of non-renewable resources with renewable energy. Energy conservation is often the most economical solution to energy shortages, and is a more environmentally benign alternative to increased energy production.

TALK ABOUT EXCITING WHEW!!!

Beware Of Energy Scams – this one over the internet, the sender: Gas Secret

Posted on by
Reply

As I have reported with the State Journal Register and the National Geographic Magazine about advertising “Energy Conservation” space heaters and Gasoline Fraud…Now they have taken to the “broadband”. These people are scum so I will not post their internet address. Its enough to say that there are no secret ways to improve your internal combustion engine’s “performance”. Those engines have only been around for over 100 years. If you get this email, please reply – Kiss My Grits!

 “Did You Know Your Car Engine Wastes 20%
Of The Gas You Buy? – Ethos Is Easy
To Use, And Starts Saving You Up To 70¢
Per Gallon on Gas – Guaranteed.”

Now You Can Keep Your Engine Healthy, Create 30%
Less Pollution And Save Up To 70¢ Per Gallon Off Your Gas Bill.
With a 100% Natural Bio-Degradable Product, Made by a California
Based Emissions Company, with a 10 Year Old Track Record

 CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM LIARS

:}

Let me tell you the story:

How The Smog In California Forced
Oil Companies To Do Something They
Didn’t Want To…

 I’m not sure if you ever had the chance to visit California in the mid 70s. It was a nightmare – environmentally speaking.

The smog was so thick you could hardly see 15 miles out.

There was so much smog and pollution in the air, that if you were to stand on your balcony facing the mountains in Southern California, the only way you would know that the mountains were there would be if you had a map showing you so.

Children in poorer families in the suburbs were getting asthma and lung problems at record numbers, the problem was really getting out of hand.

If someone didn’t do something about the air, L.A was heading to a future where wearing gas masks could be common.

CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM LIARS

Kiss My Grits! 

:}

Amerin and Commonwealth Edison’s Energy Conservation Programs – soooo 1980’s

Posted on by
Reply

I know that this post is about 2 months 2 late. But when these programs were announced, I eh yaaaaawned. Why is it that Illinois is mired in the past? These programs were all the rage in the 1980’s. Most intelligent utilities established them in the 1990’s. OH never mind…

February 22, 2008 Business section, the State Journal Register:

http://www.sj-r.com

Utilities offering incentives to cut power usage


 

By TIM LANDIS

BUSINESS EDITOR

tim.landis@sj-r.com

That old refrigerator could be worth $35 this summer. Provided it was made prior to 1993.

A refrigerator-recycling program is among a laundry list of consumer incentives that will

be offered in Illinois starting June 1 to encourage reduced power usage. The state’s two

 largest utilities, Ameren and ComEd, both were required to submit the plans as part of a

 $1 billion rate-relief package approved by legislators and the gover­nor last year.

Ameren customers will pay on average another 36 cents a month to cover the cost of the

 programs, according to the utility.

“The idea is to reduce usage during the periods of peak demand,” said Beth Bosch of the

Illinois Com­merce Commission, which just approved energy-savings programs for both

Ameren and ComEd in Chicago.

Last year’s rate-relief plan resulted after power bills for some consumers doubled and

tripled with the lifting of a 10-year freeze on rates Jan. 1, 2007. The freeze was part of a 1997

utility reform bill intend­ed to encourage more compe­tition in Illinois power mar­kets.

As part of the rate-relief package, the utilities were re­quired to devise incentive programs

for reducing cus­tomer use.

The 13 energy-saving meas­ures in the Ameren program range from refrigerator recy­cling

to a voluntary initiative that would allow the utility to remotely switch off residential central-air

units for a few minutes during peak demand.

Large industrial customers have long had the option of interruptible service.

Florida was among the early states to set up volun­tary interruption-of-service programs

for residential elec­tric customers, said David Ko-lata, executive director of the Citizens Utility

Board, a Chicago-based consumer ad­vocacy group.

CUB also played a key role in devising last year’s rate-re­lief plan.

“The way these programs work, is when prices get real­ly high, you cycle the air con­ditioner

off for 15 minutes (each hour). The consumer usually gets paid $20 to $30 a year so the utility

 has that op­tion,” Kolata said.

He called the energy-sav­ing programs a “good start,” but said CUB also remains concerned

that utilities are largely responsible for imple­menting the programs.

Ameren spokesman Leigh Morris said details still must be worked out, including for the

refrigerator recycling. He added that the voluntary in­terruption of service likely would attract

only a small percentage of customers.

“All of these programs are aimed at reducing usage without sacrificing comfort,” Morris said.

Ameren has set a goal of reducing electricity demand equal to the usage of 7,700 single-family

homes in the first year, 23,300 homes in the second year and 46,700 in the third. The utility

just filed a similar energy-savings pro­gram for natural gas cus­tomers, which still must be approved

 by the ICC.

Tim Landis can be reached at 788-1536.
:}

CES is underwhelmed.
:}

State Journal Register – They publish a very good editorial calling for efforts to combat Global Warming

Posted on by
4

I like this approach as an educational tool.

Our opinion: It’s foolish to do nothing about climate change

 

Published Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Last week, representatives from more than 160 countries started meeting in Bangkok to discuss an international climate treaty to replace the decade-old Kyoto Protocol. Again, the United States is shying away from a leadership role. Some of our concerns have merit — we can’t commit economic suicide while China goes sprinting by.“The primary concern is the so-called leakage issue,” U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson told The Associated Press. “If you take commitments and you have energy intensive industries, they might want to move to other countries which don’t have commitments.”

Signing on to an agreement that then sends our industry fleeing to countries that don’t commit to pollution control would make no sense. Yet arguably our grumbling isn’t getting us anywhere, either.

Which makes us wonder: If an asteroid was hurtling toward Earth would the Bush administration likewise sit on its hands? Would it argue that since the asteroid is a naturally occurring event there’s nothing man should do to prepare for, or mitigate, its impact?

Of course not.

So I wrote this letter trying to support their point, sigh….they did not publish it so I’m putting it up here.

:}

Editor

State Journal Register

One Copley Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

 

Emailed – 04/14/08

 

Dear Editor:

 

Thanks for your recent Editorial supporting attempts to help prevent Global Warming. There is no need to apologize for supporting such efforts though, because when America stops doing things that make no economic sense, America makes money and produces jobs every time. We do 2 things that are creating Global Warming.

 

The first thing that we Americans do that is leading us to Global Warming is we “throw things away”. How much economic sense has that ever made? Think about it. We pay good money for stuff and then throw part of it away. We buy things in packaging and we throw it away. We buy food and we throw part of it away. We buy coal and then we throw part of it out the smoke stack. We buy gasoline and throw part of it out the tailpipe. So if we quit throwing things away we automatically make money and I might add create jobs to deal with all that stuff we now throw away.

 

The second thing we do that is leading us to global warming is we “burn stuff up”. Plain and simple, we strike a match and burn something up that we paid good money for. Why not just stack some paper money on the ground, pour a little gasoline on it and strike a match? We burn coal, uranium and natural gas to make electricity. There are many ways to generate electricity without burning things. Yet we persist. We burn gasoline to transport our things and ourselves. We know that there are other ways to do this, and yet we persist. If we stop burning things up, we would save money and create jobs. Conservation is not bad for any economy.

 

So the next time you throw something away or you “strike a match” look at your hand and ask yourself, “Do I really want to do that?” Join us at www.censys.org.

  

Doug Nicodemus

948 e. adams st.

riverton, IL  62561

629-7031

dougnic55@yahoo.com

McCain’s Gas Tax Proposal – So the time for us has just about ran out

Posted on by
Reply

John McCain like every other Republican in America wants to avoid what their 30 years of dereliction of duty has wraught. Nixon, Regan and Bush (my version of lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) all increased our dependence on oil and easy Chinese money. Bush in particular ushered us to the brink of a world depression. Grover Norquist, who wants to take us back to the 1930s is about to succeed:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_norquist.html

BILL MOYERS: If states refuse to raise taxes to fix some of those problems we’ve just seen, that certainly won’t bother my next guest. He’s a sworn opponent of all taxes. He’s also the most powerful man in Washington not to hold a public office.

Officially, Grover Norquist heads an organization called Americans for Tax Reform where for almost 20 years now he has crusaded for lower taxes and less government. Unofficially he’s been the linchpin in Washington for the conservative revolution that now controls the government. His weekly meetings of activists became the politburo of strategy where all stripes of conservatives bear their differences in order to bury their hatchet in Democrats. From the Christian coalition to log cabin Republicans to the National Rifle Association on whose board he sits, this Harvard graduate keeps the troops on mission and on message. His success prompted Senator Hillary Clinton to muse aloud, if only Democrats had a Grover Norquist. Welcome to NOW.

GROVER NORQUIST: Glad to be with you.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you do have it all. You have the White House, the Congress, the regulatory agencies, the courts more or less. The last time Democrats, liberal Democrats, held that kind of power, they made some mistakes like the war in Vietnam that they couldn’t sustain the support of at home, emphasized parochial interests at the expense of the sort of bedrock universal values of American society. What are the errors you think conservatives running everything could make?

GROVER NORQUIST: I think it’s very important to always make sure that you’re talking to the entire coalition and to as many Americans as possible; not to go chasing after one little group or another. The Democrats would bring new groups into their party and not notice that larger groups are going out the back door. And so what I try and do whenever I work on an issue or work with political leaders is make sure that when you’re talking about a new approach, how does that…how does the entire coalition view that new approach? Is there a better or different way to do it that irritates fewer people and that satisfies a larger constituency?

BILL MOYERS: And that’s what you did at your Wednesday morning meetings? Those meetings became famous, for all kinds of conservatives being in there hammering things out.

GROVER NORQUIST: And we now have 27 versions of that at the state capital level, including one in New York City. So we’re taking the model of the “leave us alone” coalition from the national level to the state level as well.

BILL MOYERS: “Leave us alone?”

GROVER NORQUIST: Um-hmm. Look, the center right coalition in American politics today is best understood as a coalition of groups and individuals that on the issue that brings them to politics what they want from the government is to be left alone. Taxpayers, don’t raise my taxes. Property owners, don’t restrict or limit my property. Home schoolers, let me educate my own kids. Gun owners, don’t restrict my Second Amendment rights. All communities of faith, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, people want to practice their own religion and be left alone to raise their own kids.

BILL MOYERS: Do you have any sympathy for those states we just saw a few moments ago? Under the president’s plan, those states do not expect any direct aid from Uncle Sam. Do you have any advice for them?

GROVER NORQUIST: Sure, two things. The most important thing for President Bush and the federal government to do is to create a pro-growth economic policy because its economic growth that brings in more revenue for states and local governments. At the state level what they really have to do is take a long run view and limit the growth of spending, put limits on how much you spend. And then California, the state owns a whole bunch of land and other things that it could sell off it doesn’t need, and it needs to figure out which of those government jobs need to be in government, and what can be privatized or contracted out.

BILL MOYERS: You’re on record as saying, my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub. Is that a true statement?

And the Holy Satanic trilogy of George Mason University, Southern Methodist University and the University of Chicago have supplied all the intellectual fire power. SMU is where George Bush, jr. will try to lock up his presidential papers and avoid jail,

:}

Oh but I digress…One of the finest posters at The Oil Drum JoulesBurn who Blogs at:

http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/

Had this little cutey today:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3855#more

McCain’s Gas Pains: Gas “Tax Holidays” A Good Idea?

Posted by JoulesBurn on April 15, 2008 – 7:45pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: gas prices, John McCain, politics (list all tags)

For immediate release from John McCain’s campaign:

John McCain, who just hours earlier proposed a “tax holiday” in which the 18 cent federal tax on gasoline would be suspended during the summer driving season, has reconsidered and has instead proposed that the U.S. gallon be redefined to be equal in volume to the current U.S. quart. “This will immediately lower the price at the pump by 75%, providing visible relief to millions of Americans”, quipped McCain. “I rejected the idea of setting it equal to the liter, for obvious reasons”.When questioners suggested that this move wouldn’t actually change how much consumers spend to fill their tanks, McCain responded “Well, neither would my previous proposal”.

In unrelated election news, the McCain campaign announced that P.T. Barnum has been posthumously appointed as their policy director. Also, Hillary Clinton has proposed a suspension of the law of gravity, at least during the summer flying season, to help the beleaguered airline industry. Barack Obama reportedly had no comment on these suggestions, other than to say that Americans are definitely “atwitter” about gas prices.

We interrupt this vacation from reality with the following observations…(under the fold…)

  • As gasoline is a commodity for which prices are determined by supply and demand, lowering the price without increasing the supply will likely increase demand (usage). Prices will rise again to compensate.
  • The 18.4 cents per gallon that is now flowing into the US treasury, and which is then spent building roads, bridges, and mass transit, will instead flow to oil companies — particularly those in foreign countries, since the US imports over half of its oil.
  • Targeting the current gasoline tax instead for the development of alternative transportation and ways of using energy more efficiently will provide more lasting solutions to the current energy and economic crises than short-term attempts to fix the problem.

For Better Or Worse – it is true, someone should take my scanner away

Posted on by
Reply

:}Its true. Our children should be worried. Our grand children? They shoul be very afraid.
 better-or-worse.jpg

:}

Oh to see more: http://www.fborfw.com/strip_fix/

Juche – a simple name for a nasty idea. Kim Il Sungism

Posted on by
Reply

Jodie Foster, Pregnant Man, Iran, Prince Philip, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, American Idol, Obama, China, Beyonce, Rolling Stones. (sorry for the deception but please read below)

Normally I wouldn’t bother to cover this but since it’s on the list I felt I needed to “dis” it as much as I could. I even took the time to get Buzzes top searches for the week to punch it up a bit. I even checked every category Energy Tough Love has to publicize this human indignity. The list of “Religions” that I used to start this meditation on the relationship between Religion and the Environment placed Juche well down on the list but with 18 million adherents that still alot of folks. I had never heard of it before and I even asked a couple of people if they had heard of it. Imagine my suprise when I typed it into a search engine and up popped this Prick who claimed he was god:

www.dictatorofthemonth.com

kim.jpg

During his lifetime he forced millions of people in North Korea to worship him. Can you imagine anything more degrading or disgusting then a man who points a loaded gun at your head and demands that you treat him like a god. You must pray to him. Oh most Divine Leader. Makes me want to puke. But then he is followed by this buffoon:

www.beconfused.com

jong.jpg

Now they are “worshiping” something no better than a trained monkey. If they had an ENVIRONMENTAL group in North Korea, I wish them the best of luck but I ain’t gonna publish it. I ain’t even gona type it into a search engine. If anybody ever deserved to get a nuke shoved up his poop shoot. This would be it.

And This Note Before We Leave China for the Primal – Indigenous Religions, whatever the heck that is?

Posted on by
Reply

primal-indigenous: 300 million

http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/Observer/2008/02/29/92990.html

 AGRICULTURE

The Day China Runs Dry

By Rui Bingyou

Published: 2008-02-29

China’s massive but dwindling aquifers would be on track to run virtually dry if over-pumping continued, said Lester Brown, prominent US environmental policy advocate. At that point, its grain production would dive, severely exacerbating any food price increases that had already accumulated. Without rationally priced water, Brown predicted this scenario and a severe global food shortages as inevitable.At once an ecologist, author, farmer, and activist, Brown was one of the earliest pioneers of the modern environmental movement. He had worked in various capacities for the US Department of Agriculture, ultimately becoming the director of the International Agriculture Development Service in 1966. In 1974 he founded World Watch, a non-profit devoted to global environmental issues, and in 2001, the Earth Policy Institute.In 1995, Brown wrote a book entitled “Who Will Feed China?”, prompting worldwide attention and fierce debates in China on its role in affecting global food security.As part of the EO focus series on China’s rising food prises, Brown discussed with us the greater ecological significance in agricultural production.The key, he said, would be water.