This is a response to Energy: why we need coal and [sic] oil and nuclear power.
Let's first define the overall problem: The world needs energy, and we are getting most of it from a finite resource base. When we run out of coal, or oil, or yellowcake, we better have an alternative.
The benefit of shifting away from 'dirty' sources has been tied to environmentalism, but I will posit that instead, the shift should happen, and should happen for economic reasons.
The finite resources available to us are better spent on creating durable goods than creating energy.
Let me address the hydrocarbons first: Coal and oil are both crucial components to certain industrial processes, ones that make our lives infinitely more comfortable. Oil is a key component of pharmacuticals, lubricants, and plastics. Our lives wouldn't be that comfortable if we couldn't make hydrocarbon-based tumor suppressants, couldn't lubricate our engines, and couldn't have plastic.
If we burn these resources for energy, we are screwing ourselves out of durable goods. The better example is coal. Here we are burning all this coal for energy, wasting it, when the resource could be better used. The second largest use for coal is in steel production. There is no better way to make steel from iron ore than through a basic oxygen converter. This process requires massive amounts of O2 and massive amounts of coke (charcoaled coal). As we mine out the Appalachian mountains, we are using up our stockpiles of low-sulfur high BTU coal. We then have to shift to the inferior coal of the Powder River basin. By using coal for energy, we are screwing ourselves out of eventual high-yield steel production. Electric arc furnaces with recycled irons and steels will not sate worldwide demand.
The other argument against coal is an opportunity-cost argument. Say we strip-mine 100 million tons of coal from West Virginia. We just got ourselves 2 billion dollars of coal. However, we just rendered many square miles into an uninhabitable, unusable, heavy metals laden wasteland. We lost the opportunity to use that land for the next 25-40 years. We could have farmed it, logged it, hunted in it, fished in it, or done any number of things. The opportunity cost of using coal is often higher than not using it. That is a problem.
So, do we want to use a finite resource for short-term benefit (namely generating electricity), or do we want to use it carefully, to create durable goods, and thus wealth.
The last point has to do with nuclear energy. Modern reactors are a fine example of how far the nuclear industry has advanced. Waste levels are fractions of what they were decades ago, and the energy source is more viable now than in years past. The problem is, nuclear energy isn't a viable solution right now.
Once nuclear plants are a certain size, the only way to construct them safely is with a monocast/monoforged containment vessel, cased in concrete. So, unless you want several hundred small plants (which is not economically viable), you need to use a monocast vessel.
Here is the kicker: We can't build the containment vessels. If we wanted to, it would take 10 years to develop the infrastructure, do a half-dozen practice castings, and finally, maybe install one. Oh, and find someone who wants to spend the tens of billions needed to do it.
Japan Steel Works, famed for its Katanas, is the only company in the world that can do precision casting/forging 600 tons at a time. Yes, competitors are gearing up, but mainly for their respective domestic markets. Besides, given recent quality assurance issues, do you really want to buy a nuclear containment vessel from China First Heavy Industries? QA is tough, especially 500-600 tons at a time. I was doing some research about precision cast parts related to a barge accident in the Northwest US, and we can barely cast 20 tons with high precision in the US. So, we are not about to cast these in the US of A.
So, the answer is: Get in line. Give Japan Steel Works $100 million, wait 9 years, give them another $250 million, wait a year, and you can take delivery of a brand new precision-cast and forged containment vessel.
Alternatively, find someone willing to drop $10 billion to build a steel plant comparable to Japan Steel's facility. Drop another $2 billion on research, tests and failed castings, and you will have a decent casting 10 years later. Maybe. Don't plan on making any more than 20 containment vessels, because that is all the US market will support. Given the sunk cost of building the plant capacity, no investor will touch it. Of course, the government could do it, but that is what Republicans call socialism, and admitting that the government can function beyond the capacity of private industry is not something that comes easily to many conservatives. Perhaps another few dozen can be sold on the export market, but we don't subsidize our steel industry enough to make it competitive in the global market.
Bloomberg article for details.
I think nuclear energy done well is a good idea, especially with newer disposal technology. It just isn't that feasible right now, and has to be thought of in a 25-year timeframe.
The bottom line with 'dirty' energy is that it is not a good direction to expand in. We have spent decades externalizing or ignoring the associated costs, and it is time to move on to energy sources that leave us less vulnerable to finite resource allocations.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Teen-Be-Gone! (Or Discrimination and Oppression?)
I guess I should have saw it coming. There are devices for sale that target teens to prevent them from loitering. How could argue with that? Break up the teens and prevent crimes, right? Everything is better.
I beg to differ.
The problem lies in how the device operates. It uses sound to annoy and drive away people who can hear high frequencies. Generally, only younger people can hear the noise as humans lose the ability to hear the higher frequencies as they age. This allows a device to emit a frequency low enough to be heard by the young, but high enough to be unheard by the old.
So why do I dislike this device?
It assaults anyone who can hear it indiscriminately. Teens, surely, but also those in their 20's and children. What about those who work in the areas? Or what if someone lives nearby? What are they to do? You cannot walk around with earplugs in all the time if you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.
Using this device at all times and indiscriminately is bad policy. Using it for specific purposes and at specific times I can support. Here are examples of using this technology correctly and incorrectly:
An example of using this technology incorrectly:
An apartment complex has an issue with loiterers. This device is installed so that the loiterers will disperse. However, young people live in this apartment so when ever they go outside they are subject to this device, even though they live there! Bad use of technology indeed!
An example of using this device correctly:
A parking lot has an issue with loiterers after a nearby stadium finished its sporting events. It has a device installed that is turned on after the completion of the sporting event. Once the parking lots has cleared or mostly cleared the device is turned back off. A good use of technology.
You can see that the biggest issue between the two examples is that the technology is used either indiscriminately or used discriminately, using the device to achieve certain results in certain situations.
Blanketing areas with high pitched sound to assault everyone with ears sensitive enough to hear it is wrong. Using technology to prevent crimes and enforce laws is fine. Lets not let technology rule over us in an attempt to gain safety or protection. Use technology correctly and we will all live better.
And for some of us, it will be a little bit quieter.
Read more about the situation here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/23/teen.be.gone.ap/index.html
I beg to differ.
The problem lies in how the device operates. It uses sound to annoy and drive away people who can hear high frequencies. Generally, only younger people can hear the noise as humans lose the ability to hear the higher frequencies as they age. This allows a device to emit a frequency low enough to be heard by the young, but high enough to be unheard by the old.
So why do I dislike this device?
It assaults anyone who can hear it indiscriminately. Teens, surely, but also those in their 20's and children. What about those who work in the areas? Or what if someone lives nearby? What are they to do? You cannot walk around with earplugs in all the time if you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.
Using this device at all times and indiscriminately is bad policy. Using it for specific purposes and at specific times I can support. Here are examples of using this technology correctly and incorrectly:
An example of using this technology incorrectly:
An apartment complex has an issue with loiterers. This device is installed so that the loiterers will disperse. However, young people live in this apartment so when ever they go outside they are subject to this device, even though they live there! Bad use of technology indeed!
An example of using this device correctly:
A parking lot has an issue with loiterers after a nearby stadium finished its sporting events. It has a device installed that is turned on after the completion of the sporting event. Once the parking lots has cleared or mostly cleared the device is turned back off. A good use of technology.
You can see that the biggest issue between the two examples is that the technology is used either indiscriminately or used discriminately, using the device to achieve certain results in certain situations.
Blanketing areas with high pitched sound to assault everyone with ears sensitive enough to hear it is wrong. Using technology to prevent crimes and enforce laws is fine. Lets not let technology rule over us in an attempt to gain safety or protection. Use technology correctly and we will all live better.
And for some of us, it will be a little bit quieter.
Read more about the situation here:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/23/teen.be.gone.ap/index.html
PETA makes a reasonable move.
I have found a glimmer of sense from the Political Hot-Button Action Group PETA, when known as having members that splash paint on people who wear fur, and being charged with caring more about chickens than children.
PETA has offered 1 million dollars to whoever can create lab-grown meat that is affordable and takes like the real thing.
In a bold move, similar to the X Prize games for space flight, PETA has challenged scientists to put their brains to use turning their discoveries into practical advances to benefit society. Not only that, but PETA has also found a way to to fulfill its moral obligation to protect animals while at the same time providing consumers with what they want, the driving factor in any economy.
I can only hope that this is the start of a more positive light shining both on and within PETA. They have a noble cause, but the radical ideas or actions to obtain goals has placed most of PETA on the fringe of normalcy. If PETA has more ideas like this, maybe we can all begin to agree a little more.
You can read about the goals of this million dollar challenge here on cnn.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/23/peta.chicken/index.html
Or you can go to PETA's website and read about it directly:
http://www.peta.org/feat_in_virto_contest.asp
PETA has offered 1 million dollars to whoever can create lab-grown meat that is affordable and takes like the real thing.
In a bold move, similar to the X Prize games for space flight, PETA has challenged scientists to put their brains to use turning their discoveries into practical advances to benefit society. Not only that, but PETA has also found a way to to fulfill its moral obligation to protect animals while at the same time providing consumers with what they want, the driving factor in any economy.
I can only hope that this is the start of a more positive light shining both on and within PETA. They have a noble cause, but the radical ideas or actions to obtain goals has placed most of PETA on the fringe of normalcy. If PETA has more ideas like this, maybe we can all begin to agree a little more.
You can read about the goals of this million dollar challenge here on cnn.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/23/peta.chicken/index.html
Or you can go to PETA's website and read about it directly:
http://www.peta.org/feat_in_virto_contest.asp
Hawaiian Sovereignty.
In response to a News Article found on cnn.com
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/01/hawaii.palace.takeover/index.html
On April 30, 2008 approximately 60 people of Native Hawaiian descent reclaimed the Royal Residence to conduct business. They did so quietly and peacefully, showing respect and dignity as they went about their work. At the end of the day, they left quietly, vowing to return to complete more business.
Why did they do this?
The group, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, rejects statehood of Hawaii and wish to return to the constitutional monarchy of their past. This and other groups claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown illegally by the United States of America.
Sounds silly, doesn't it? Not so fast!
Consider that in 1993 President Clinton issued, with U.S Congressional Approval, an apology to the Hawaiian People and "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the **active participation** of agents and citizens of the **United States** and further acknowledges that the **Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished** to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum."
That sounds like a pretty clear acknowledgment of guilt to me. Not only that, but is also sounds like a great starting point for legal action to reclaim some land on the Hawaiian Islands for a separate Hawaiian Reservation.
I support fully the actions of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, and hope they continue to use peaceful demonstrations to draw attention to their situation. As the United States goes overseas to bring freedom to those under an unwanted government, why not take a look at similar events at home? Why are the Hawaiian people not given a 'reservation' similar to other ethnic groups that occupied the United States prior to its conquest and development? These seems an unfair practice to me.
Surely some land could be placed aside and called 'Hawaiian Kingdom Reservation' and given similar autonomy as other Native American Societies have. The Royal Palace could have some time or a section of the palace set aside so the Hawaiian Reservation could conduct business in their 'rightful' place of business? I fail to see how this would cause undue burden on a country that "acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished . . . their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/01/hawaii.palace.takeover/index.html
On April 30, 2008 approximately 60 people of Native Hawaiian descent reclaimed the Royal Residence to conduct business. They did so quietly and peacefully, showing respect and dignity as they went about their work. At the end of the day, they left quietly, vowing to return to complete more business.
Why did they do this?
The group, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, rejects statehood of Hawaii and wish to return to the constitutional monarchy of their past. This and other groups claim that the Hawaiian Kingdom was overthrown illegally by the United States of America.
Sounds silly, doesn't it? Not so fast!
Consider that in 1993 President Clinton issued, with U.S Congressional Approval, an apology to the Hawaiian People and "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the **active participation** of agents and citizens of the **United States** and further acknowledges that the **Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished** to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum."
That sounds like a pretty clear acknowledgment of guilt to me. Not only that, but is also sounds like a great starting point for legal action to reclaim some land on the Hawaiian Islands for a separate Hawaiian Reservation.
I support fully the actions of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, and hope they continue to use peaceful demonstrations to draw attention to their situation. As the United States goes overseas to bring freedom to those under an unwanted government, why not take a look at similar events at home? Why are the Hawaiian people not given a 'reservation' similar to other ethnic groups that occupied the United States prior to its conquest and development? These seems an unfair practice to me.
Surely some land could be placed aside and called 'Hawaiian Kingdom Reservation' and given similar autonomy as other Native American Societies have. The Royal Palace could have some time or a section of the palace set aside so the Hawaiian Reservation could conduct business in their 'rightful' place of business? I fail to see how this would cause undue burden on a country that "acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished . . . their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)