GreenEngineer’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  yes, but

  I agree that some (many?)researchers need to be more sensitive to their impact on their research subjects.  But I specifically do not think that the Hippocratic Oath is a good model for best practices in this field, and here's why.

  The purpose of the physician is to save the patient's life, heal them, or at least keep them comfortable if they are terminal.  The focus in this context is entirely on the individual human organism, which, implicitly, is valued in and of itself.

  A research biologist, even one focused on conservation, is not and should not be focused on the individual organism.  Good conservation biology focuses on ecosystems and habitats and populations, not individuals.  "Less trees, more forest" as my permaculture teacher would say when talking about the value of thinning in forest management.

  The exception to this is of course extremely endangered populations of larger animals, where each individual's survival distinctly contributes to the survival of the species.  But that, I think, is the exception rather than the rule for most working biologists.On National Geographic's inane video clips of overactive researchers posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Odd numbers

  I'm curious about the numbers cited. They come from the MIT report, but they don't make much sense to me.

  The EIA has figures on CO2 and electricity production by fuel here.

  According to them, the nation's coal fleet is running about 960 kg/MWh, which is in line with the figures given in the report (since most of our fleet is fluidized bed; i.e. old tech).  But the EIA figures given 600 kg/MWh for the natural gas fleet, much lower than the 832 kg/MWh cited in the report for a combined-cycle plant (i.e. new, efficient technology).  That's a pretty huge discrepancy.

  I'm also skeptical of the figures given for the potential emissions of high-tech coal plants.  Since no capture is involved, the improvement in performance MUST come from improved efficiency (i.e. more MWh per ton of fuel).  

  The report claims that ultra-supercritical pulverized coal can do 738 kg/MWh.  That's a 40% improvement over fluidized bed technology.  That's ALOT.  That may be feasible, but it strikes me as a potentially over-optimistic estimate.  (I'm not sure if any ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plants have been built.  This number may have been calculated/estimated rather than measured.)

  Even weirder, they've got the ultra-supercritical pulverized coal running neck and neck with the combined cycle gas plant.  Combined cycle gas plants are among the most efficient plants out there, in terms of combustion heat per electricity generated.  And coal has about 60% more carbon per unit of embodied energy than gas does.

  So in order to achieve the performance they are describing, the ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plant would have be to 60% more efficient than a combined cycle gas plant.  Since CC-gas plants run around 40%, a ultra-supercritical pulverized coal would have to be 65% thermally efficient to perform as they are describing.  As far as I know, solid-oxide fuel cells are the ONLY technology that approaches that level of performance.  So I'm deeply skeptical of this report, or of the subsequent interpretation of it.
  On How the new European carbon standard could backfire posted 1 year ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  pasture

  The answer to high feed prices in beef operations is intensive, high-frequency pasture rotation systems, which build soil as well as providing good nutrition for the animals.

  I wonder if anyone has tried doing something similar with hogs?  What I have in mind is a "pasture" that is actually an orchard of mixed fruit and nut trees/bushes, selected for high productivity and nutrition.  Let the fruit fall, and the hogs munch it up.  The problem, of course, is that it takes much longer to establish "pasture" of this sort than one made of grass.  And I have no idea if this is workable in practice.  I am just curious to know if anyone has tried it on a commercial or semi-commercial scale.On Hog farms can benefit rural agriculture and community posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thanks!

  But given the unlikeliness of this, the next best thing was to have a lot of factions canceling one another out, so that the only way to build coalitions was appeal to the greater good, or at least to interests of factions adding up to an majority - which was imperfect, but still useful approximation of that greater good.

  OK, I see your point.  It seems to me that the critical element here is citizen involvement.  Equality makes the equation balance easier, and makes the involvement more feasible (in terms of available personal resources, if nothing else).  But a sufficient level of motivation and involvement in the political process will compensate for inequality to an extent, whereas equality, in and of itself, in the absence of a strong ethic of citizen involvement in government doesn't get you much (and probably doesn't last, either).

  My sense is that a sustainable democratic political system will require a level of involvement from the average citizen that seems enormous by modern metrics (though perhaps not so large in absolute terms, since any involvement is much more than the current average of ~zero).On Deregulation and inequality are bad for both the economy and the environment posted 1 year ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  stupidity sells

  For at least my entire life, our culture has had strong negative social reinforcement for intelligence.  This is probably less true now, post dot-com and the rise of the geeks, than it was when I was a kid.  But it still apparently dominates our national psychology.

  So maybe someone from outside America can address this question: Is this fetish for leaders who paint themselves as dumb, uneducated, joe-sixpacks an American attribute?  Or is Europe like this too?  Canada?  My thought is that perhaps a country with a real educational system (rather than a football-and-babysitting service) might have a population that values education and intelligence rather than holding them in contempt.  But that's pure speculation on my part.On Why scientists aren't more persuasive, part 2 posted 1 year ago 3 Responses