<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for A mixed bag]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Bart Anderson</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:00:06 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>At least he knows about peak oil<p>On the (somewhat) positive side, Schlesinger is <a href="http://energybulletin.net/11014.html" rel="nofollow">aware of peak oil and is big on energy security. More at &nbsp;<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1636920,00.html" rel="nofollow">The Guardian and <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060218-092212-9467r.htm" rel="nofollow">Washington Times.<p>
Has anybody run across recent statements by Schlesinger on global warming? In the past, I know that global warming was not (ahem) one of Schlesinger's strong points. However the smarter Republicans are gradually signing on. Even Exxon now &nbsp;agrees that global warming is real and it's mostly caused by human activity. &nbsp;

<p>Bart<br>
<a href="http://energybulletin.net" rel="nofollow">Energy Bulletin</a></br></p></p></a></a></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>At least he knows about peak oil<p>On the (somewhat) positive side, Schlesinger is <a href="http://energybulletin.net/11014.html" rel="nofollow">aware of peak oil and is big on energy security. More at &nbsp;<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1636920,00.html" rel="nofollow">The Guardian and <a href="http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060218-092212-9467r.htm" rel="nofollow">Washington Times.<p>
Has anybody run across recent statements by Schlesinger on global warming? In the past, I know that global warming was not (ahem) one of Schlesinger's strong points. However the smarter Republicans are gradually signing on. Even Exxon now &nbsp;agrees that global warming is real and it's mostly caused by human activity. &nbsp;

<p>Bart<br>
<a href="http://energybulletin.net" rel="nofollow">Energy Bulletin</a></br></p></p></a></a></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:44:57 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>O RLY?<p>Exxon now agrees <br>


that global warming is real <br>
and it's mostly caused by human activity.<p>


Looked around a little bit, but all I could find was that the first point.<p>
_<p>
Although incidentally I was able to find Kerry browbeating Gingrich into admitting Inhofe is way off base.<br>
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe/" rel="nofollow">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe ...</a></br></p></p></p></br></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>O RLY?<p>Exxon now agrees <br>


that global warming is real <br>
and it's mostly caused by human activity.<p>


Looked around a little bit, but all I could find was that the first point.<p>
_<p>
Although incidentally I was able to find Kerry browbeating Gingrich into admitting Inhofe is way off base.<br>
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe/" rel="nofollow">http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe ...</a></br></p></p></p></br></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by Bart Anderson</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:33:36 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Exxon change of heart<p>Stuart Staniford at The Oil Drum had more about Exxon's "change of heart" during a conference call for bloggers <br>
<a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245" rel="nofollow">http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245<p>
As you note, GreyFlcn, this didn't get much coverage. It would be good to have it followed up.

<p>Bart<br>
<a href="http://energybulletin.net" rel="nofollow">Energy Bulletin</a></br></p></p></a></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Exxon change of heart<p>Stuart Staniford at The Oil Drum had more about Exxon's "change of heart" during a conference call for bloggers <br>
<a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245" rel="nofollow">http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2245<p>
As you note, GreyFlcn, this didn't get much coverage. It would be good to have it followed up.

<p>Bart<br>
<a href="http://energybulletin.net" rel="nofollow">Energy Bulletin</a></br></p></p></a></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by wacki</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:07:40 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>What do you mean?</strong></p><p><b>After that it drifted into the usual grab bag of ethanol (which you'll recall he used to oppose), nuclear, and cap-and-trade.</b></p><p>
You can't fault him for ethanol. &nbsp;He was honest in the last election and we ended up with bush as prez. &nbsp; &nbsp;Not sure what you mean by the grab bag of nuclear though. &nbsp;Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>What do you mean?</strong></p><p><b>After that it drifted into the usual grab bag of ethanol (which you'll recall he used to oppose), nuclear, and cap-and-trade.</b></p><p>
You can't fault him for ethanol. &nbsp;He was honest in the last election and we ended up with bush as prez. &nbsp; &nbsp;Not sure what you mean by the grab bag of nuclear though. &nbsp;Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:12:59 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Nuclear?  Maybe.<p>re: wacki<br>
Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.<p>
It might.<p>
Thats all assuming renewables don't reach a tipping point to be able to effectively provide baseload by 2015.<p>
_<p>
Concentrating Solar Power, backed up by either molten salt, or biogas currently already makes a cost effective challenge to Nuclear.<p>
Geothermal finally seems to be picking up, despite the GOP's attempts to kill it.<br>
<a href="http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206" rel="nofollow">http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206<br>
<a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1001" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1001<br>
<a href="http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to_wheels.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to_wheels ...<br>
<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17236&amp;ch=biztech" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=1723 ...<br>
<a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/965" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/965<br>
<a href="http://www.rasertech.com/media/powerblog/2007/03/us-senate-takes-steps-to-restore-doe.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rasertech.com/media/powerblog/2007/03/us-senat ...<br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406171041.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406171041 ...<p>
And the advancement of Direct Carbon Fuel Cells, and BioCharcoal offer the possibility to yield 10x the raw energy of cellulosic ethanol from the same biomass in electric form.<br>
(Or at very worst 4x the energy if we just burn BioCharcoal in existing coal facilities)<p>
_<p>
Not to mention, there's also always the spectre of Storage.<p>
UltraCapacitors could come down in price, mixed with ANY inexepensive/reliable renewable.<p>
Or we might just consider that we like pumped hydro all the sudden and solve it quick and simple.<p>
_<p>
<strong>Frankly, I don't like Nuclear simply because:<br>


It's Full Cost including subsidies and externalities is way too expensive<br>
The externalities and liabilities make it an unsustainable tax burden<br>
It's opportunity cost is way too high<br>
With a buildup speed thats so slow, it'd need to get built recklessly fast to keep up with world demand.<br>
We aren't far off from not needing it

</br></br></br></br></br></strong></p></p></p></p></p></p></br></p></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></p></p></p></p></p></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Nuclear?  Maybe.<p>re: wacki<br>
Whether you like it or not nuclear is going to play a very important role in our future.<p>
It might.<p>
Thats all assuming renewables don't reach a tipping point to be able to effectively provide baseload by 2015.<p>
_<p>
Concentrating Solar Power, backed up by either molten salt, or biogas currently already makes a cost effective challenge to Nuclear.<p>
Geothermal finally seems to be picking up, despite the GOP's attempts to kill it.<br>
<a href="http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206" rel="nofollow">http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206<br>
<a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1001" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1001<br>
<a href="http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to_wheels.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/well_to_wheels ...<br>
<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17236&amp;ch=biztech" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=1723 ...<br>
<a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/965" rel="nofollow">http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/965<br>
<a href="http://www.rasertech.com/media/powerblog/2007/03/us-senate-takes-steps-to-restore-doe.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rasertech.com/media/powerblog/2007/03/us-senat ...<br>
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406171041.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070406171041 ...<p>
And the advancement of Direct Carbon Fuel Cells, and BioCharcoal offer the possibility to yield 10x the raw energy of cellulosic ethanol from the same biomass in electric form.<br>
(Or at very worst 4x the energy if we just burn BioCharcoal in existing coal facilities)<p>
_<p>
Not to mention, there's also always the spectre of Storage.<p>
UltraCapacitors could come down in price, mixed with ANY inexepensive/reliable renewable.<p>
Or we might just consider that we like pumped hydro all the sudden and solve it quick and simple.<p>
_<p>
<strong>Frankly, I don't like Nuclear simply because:<br>


It's Full Cost including subsidies and externalities is way too expensive<br>
The externalities and liabilities make it an unsustainable tax burden<br>
It's opportunity cost is way too high<br>
With a buildup speed thats so slow, it'd need to get built recklessly fast to keep up with world demand.<br>
We aren't far off from not needing it

</br></br></br></br></br></strong></p></p></p></p></p></p></br></p></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></p></p></p></p></p></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:38:02 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Not to mention<p>Nevada might just as well take their current position on the waste by the supposed new opening data for Yucca Mountain in 2017.<p>
Screw your waste and the horse it rode in on. &nbsp;You made it? &nbsp;You keep it. &nbsp;We don't want it.<p>
Besides which, even though the storage capacity of Yucca Mountain has more area to hold it.<p>
DOE's already exceeded the ammount of waste agreed upon through the original legistlation.<p>
Yucca Mountain has essentially closed operations for now waiting on legistlation from the GOP to attempt to forcefeed Nevada as much waste as it can carry.<br>
<a href="http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-09-01.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-09-01.asp ...<p>
Not to mention, the water table fraud<br>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/full/434427b.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/full/4344 ...<p>
_<p>
And nuclear isn't looking too rosy elsewhere.<br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1479527,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1479527, ...<br>
<a href="http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/34718.php?contentType=4&amp;contentId=140651" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/34718.php?contentType=4& ...<br>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/25/nuclear.plant/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/25/nuclear.plant/index.html ...<br>
<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,430164,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,430164,00.html ...<br>
<a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N11428084&amp;WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-4" rel="nofollow">http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyI ...<p>
_<p>
Lastly, Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majoriety Leader might toss a monkey wrench in things :)</p></p></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></p></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Not to mention<p>Nevada might just as well take their current position on the waste by the supposed new opening data for Yucca Mountain in 2017.<p>
Screw your waste and the horse it rode in on. &nbsp;You made it? &nbsp;You keep it. &nbsp;We don't want it.<p>
Besides which, even though the storage capacity of Yucca Mountain has more area to hold it.<p>
DOE's already exceeded the ammount of waste agreed upon through the original legistlation.<p>
Yucca Mountain has essentially closed operations for now waiting on legistlation from the GOP to attempt to forcefeed Nevada as much waste as it can carry.<br>
<a href="http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-09-01.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-09-01.asp ...<p>
Not to mention, the water table fraud<br>
<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/full/434427b.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/full/4344 ...<p>
_<p>
And nuclear isn't looking too rosy elsewhere.<br>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1479527,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1479527, ...<br>
<a href="http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/34718.php?contentType=4&amp;contentId=140651" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsradio88.com/pages/34718.php?contentType=4& ...<br>
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/25/nuclear.plant/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/25/nuclear.plant/index.html ...<br>
<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,430164,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,430164,00.html ...<br>
<a href="http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N11428084&amp;WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-4" rel="nofollow">http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyI ...<p>
_<p>
Lastly, Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majoriety Leader might toss a monkey wrench in things :)</p></p></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></a></br></p></p></a></br></p></a></br></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #7 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:47:13 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/7</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>More Drama<p>Lol, more Yucca Mountain drama<br>
<a href="http://www.kxnt.com/pages/220333.php?contentType=4&amp;contentId=314251" rel="nofollow">http://www.kxnt.com/pages/220333.php?contentType=4&amp;co ...<p>
Like said, Nevada is none too happy about Yucca, and are going to fight against it every step of the way.</p></a></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>More Drama<p>Lol, more Yucca Mountain drama<br>
<a href="http://www.kxnt.com/pages/220333.php?contentType=4&amp;contentId=314251" rel="nofollow">http://www.kxnt.com/pages/220333.php?contentType=4&amp;co ...<p>
Like said, Nevada is none too happy about Yucca, and are going to fight against it every step of the way.</p></a></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #8 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 03:29:43 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/mccains-big-speech-on-energy-and-climate/8</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Although<p>You have to admit, the doublespeak is funny<p>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazdKO1IHlg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazdKO1IHlg<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI</a></br></a></br></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Although<p>You have to admit, the doublespeak is funny<p>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazdKO1IHlg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KazdKO1IHlg<br>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI</a></br></a></br></a></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>