The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday produced a special report covering all things energy. The series warns that the gasoline engine won't be phased out anytime soon; considers the newfound popularity of wood stoves and LED lights; takes a critical look at "clean coal"; peruses the latest in clean-tech; and surveys the energy situation in the United Kingdom. It also covers a couple of oily trends: oil companies' moves to invest in alternative energy, and managers leaving Big Oil to join energy start-ups. A podcast explains emissions trading; a list of tips fact-checks the viability of common gas-saving methods, from increasing tire pressure to drafting off of semi trucks. "Think about it: Pretty much every major issue has energy front and center," notes the editor. "There's the economy. And national security. Oh, and the fate of the planet." Oh, right, that.
source: The Wall Street Journal
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time
Comments
View as Flat
vakibs Posted 12:01 am
17 Sep 2008
internal combustion engines driven by petrol
clean coal technology
cap and trade :: pay and pollute as much as you want
Notice that there is no mention of the real actors
electric drive
nuclear power
moratorium on coal :: ensure that global warming never exceeds thresholds
WSJ has become a joke ever since it has been taken over by the Murdoch empire. It is the mouthpiece of all the fat and ugly technologies that control the market, and who refuse to give away.
Imagine a fat man running with a certain velocity. You watch him from aside, and notice that there is a sharp drop ahead of him. If he keeps running, the fat man will fall off into an abyss. You shout at him , asking him to change direction.
He replies, "I cannot do it now. According to Newton's first law of motion, I have to keep moving ahead with a constant velocity".
You say, "But you should change direction. You will die otherwise".
He replies, "You see. I am a body with a large mass, so I contain a lot of inertia."
You exclaim, "You have enough control in your muscles. Please force yourself to turn a bit. If you keep running forward, you will fall off the cliff in a couple of minutes."
He replies, " My eyes are clogged due to exertion. I cannot see anything beyond the next few metres. Since I don't believe in what I don't see, I will not listen to you."
You tell him. "You are getting tired. May be you should slow down."
He huffs and puffs, looks at you in anger, and retorts "You tell me I cannot keep running. I have enough energy within me to keep running for atleast 10 minutes".
You tell him, "But you are right about to fall off the.. "
Then it's all over.. bye bye fat man !
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:56 am
17 Sep 2008
Conservation efforts within that five mile radius have probably returned more capacity to the grid than those solar panels by several fold. If conservation was done in earnest with mass conversion of building heating and cooling loads to geoexchange rather than the common gas heat and electric air conditioning that is common locally much more capacity would be made available without building a single new power source.
It's simply easier to conserve, convert to geothermal, or produce power with wind and solar than it is to build a nuclear power plant and you can do it faster and cheaper.
The idiots at the WSJ are still pushing hydrogen cars and clean coal; you'd think that they never got on the internet. On the ground the alternatives are bicycles, public transit and solar panels. It's no wonder Wall Street is taking a dive; they've quit reading anything but their own PR.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:41 pm
17 Sep 2008
How would it contribute when USA has not constructed any new nuclear plant in the last 30 years ? Duh !!
This is due to violent opposition from coal industry, and environmentalists like you joining in the chorus. What a strange bed fellows you make !
It's simply easier to conserve, convert to geothermal, or produce power with wind and solar than it is to build a nuclear power plant and you can do it faster and cheaper.
You should be following Michael Hoexter and his endless demands of government subsidies for the cheapest solar kid out there, CSP. And you should be following Gar Lipow with his requests for a national electric superhighway..
Bottom line. Renewable energy is neither fast nor cheap. Just ask your own renewable friends. It doesn't mean I don't like renewable energy. I love it, but it makes sense to use nuclear. Otherwise we will never win the battle with coal.
Please stop using the economics argument when criticizing nuclear power, it is quite dumb.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:07 pm
18 Sep 2008
Down in Sacramento SMUD is pushing conservation and delivers power at less cost to customers than PG&E while increasing population served. PG&E has a nuclear power plant and SMUD doesn't.
How do they do it? Solar, wind, geothermal, geoexchange and utility conservation programs. No coal, no nukes, no new hydropower and less gas peaker plant use.
Tell me it can't be done again.
Permalink