Category: Legacy

Posted on by lhl

From the recent reading I’ve been doing, several things seem clear: we’re undeniably running low on fossil fuels, prices are only going to go up (increasing demand, finite decreasing supply), environmental impact suggests we need to switch to as soon as possible to a less dangerous power supply.

Bruce Sterling’s latest Viridian Note makes (sorry, Bruce, really peurile) jabs at James Lovelock’s suggestion that “Nuclear power is the only green solution.” The comments suffer from: conflating nuclear power w/ nuclear weapons, general ‘nukes are bad just because’ barbs, and complete lack of any alternative solution, constructive criticism, or well, any redeeming value at all.

As I understand it, the arguments against nuclear power:

  • Total cost of ownership (waste disposal, decommissioning)
  • Accident potential (leakage, meltdown)
  • Generating dangerous nuclear materials that could be used by malefactors
  • The larger issue of waste management (where/how to dump it)

It seems from the studies I’ve found is that even in light of cost of high capital costs (building, decommissioning) and waste disposal, nuclear power is price competitive with fossil fuels – and that’s before you factor in fossil fuels’ huge environmental/health costs.

As far as safety concerns, it seems that the reactors themselves are very safe. Modern (passive-safe) designs would seem to suggest that a Chernobyl-like, or even 3MI meltdown would be extremely unlikely assuming proper regulation/oversight. That being said, how secure would these be from terrorist threats (note, that reactors cannot under any circumstances explode like a nuclear bomb) and waste transport are probably two concerns that need to be given due consideration (and weighed to the alternatives).

As far as I can tell, the separation of weapons grade Plutonium (239) from nuclear reactors is a strawman argument. And, as far as acquiring, radioactive materials that could be used in “dirty bombs” (although I’d imagine it’d be much easier to get those materials from hospitals, research facilities, industrial sites?).

And lastly, the issue of radioactive waste. Permanent disposal is apparently still an open issue. The EPA has a site on how it is dealt w/ currently. The NEI also has a number of resources, specifically on the Yucca Mountain Project.

While low-level waste isn’t as big of a concern, high-level waste is a problem considering that the isotopes are highly radioactive and have extremely long half-lives (some upwards of 100,000yrs). It’s too bad that the IFR was cancelled, although fast-breeder and hybrid reactor designs offer the promise of dramatically reducing high-level radioactive waste to insignificant amounts. (commercial reprocessing is occurring)

Currently, via 103 operating reactors (89% utilization), nuclear power provides 21% of the nation’s electrical power. Renawable (including hydroelectric) provides 7%, which is pretty respectable. I’m still very much enamored with a national push for wind farms, although cost/kWH, predictability, and power transmissions are problems that might not be reliably overcome. (note: Good wind areas, which cover 6% of the contiguous U.S. land area, have the potential to supply more than one and a half times the current electricity consumption of the United States.)

So, nuclear power isn’t perfect, and it’s a hard decision to make whether to go nuclear. That being said, w/ coal as the alternative (US is #1 in worldwide reserves of coal) and continued dependence on a rapidly dwindling oil supply, I think I’d be more likely to side w/ Lovelock.

(not trying to give short thrift to the ginormous benefits of increased efficiency/conservation, but I’m primarily doing an analysis of nuclear energy as production option here; even a significant [say, 30%, even 50%] savings wouldn’t bring us anywhere close to fossil-fuel independence)

Hmm, it’d be nice if the government would be more able/willing to provide central information (the ability to do arbitrary data comparisons, read pros and cons/ link to policy/discussions) would be really nice.

Links/resources:

Posted on by lhl

Over the coming weeks we’ll be doing an analysis of lightweight personal content management systems at work as well.

One of the difficulties is trying to bridge the blogging and the larger collaboration space. (I think in the end, the compromise might be to use MT or EE for blogs/some CM, Drupal for community sites, and try to integrate a wiki in. TikiWiki unfortunately is just too unstable for use — hmm, TikiPro looks promising)

Posted on by lhl
Posted on by lhl
6/1 Yo La Tengo w/ Antietam Henry Fonda $15
6/4 Shins Wiltern $19
6/4 Tortoise + Autolux/Beans Henry Fonda $18.50
6/8, 8PM The Stills & See Ray Henry Fonda $17.50
6/9, 8PM The Fire Theft Troubadour $15
6/9 Franz Ferdinand Wiltern $18.50
6/10, 8PM Mission of Burma + Kinski Henry Fonda $22
6/11, 7:30 The Thermals and Things Explode, Low Skies Knitting Factory $10
6/17, 8PM Piebald, The Jealous Sound Troubadour $10
6/26, 8PM Mike Doughty’s Band Troubadour $15
6/26 Decemberists El Rey $15
Posted on by lhl

Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 -keenly insightful commentary on Iraq and other issues:

Let me give you an example the War on Terrorism. I think we do a masterful job at the tactical level. We attack al Qaeda on the ground. We break down the finances. We break down the cells. We get law enforcement cooperation around the world doing wonderful damage to the organization. Yet, as an ideology and a movement, it has grown.

If I were to analyze, from a strategic point of view, al Qaeda – and, Im not saying this is the right analogy, but its just an example – the strategic center of gravity for al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is a pool of angry, young men willing to die. What causes angry young men willing to die?

They’re willing to die because theres a political, economic or social reason. Some sense of disenfranchisement. Some sense of oppression that makes them angry, fires them up, and makes them tempted to come to al Qaeda. Now, that isn’t enough to get them to blow themselves up and to do horrific acts. You need a rationale. You need something that justifies what they do.

At the operational level, the center of gravity is the aberrant form of Islam that they’re able to use on them to provide the sense of reward, and rationale and justification for what the do. And then the set of tactics that work so well against us, because it is asymmetric.

If you think about it on those three levels, I have to go after this War on Terrorism, which is even a bad name. I have to go after this movement of extremism at three levels. How do I cut that flow of angry young men? How do I make sure that aberrant form of Islam is rejected? Or encourage others to, and I’ve got some thoughts on all this, but I wont go into it here. And do the things that we do well at the tactical level. But, you don’t have that kind of strategic thinking.

Posted on by lhl

Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore Speech on Iraq Policy [Real] – Gore speaking at NYU MoveOn.org event. Transcript here.

Gore asks (and spends almost an hour discussing):

How did we get from September 12th , 2001, when a leading French newspaper ran a giant headline with the words “We Are All Americans Now” and when we had the good will and empathy of all the world — to the horror that we all felt in witnessing the pictures of torture in Abu Ghraib.

[this is superb] Here’s what Gore ends with:

President Bush offered a brief and half-hearted apology to the Arab world – but he should apologize to the American people for abandoning the Geneva Conventions. He also owes an apology to the U.S. Army for cavalierly sending them into harm’s way while ignoring the best advice of their commanders. Perhaps most importantly of all, he should apologize to all those men and women throughout our world who have held the ideal of the United States of America as a shining goal, to inspire their hopeful efforts to bring about justice under a rule of law in their own lands. Of course, the problem with all these legitimate requests is that a sincere apology requires an admission of error, a willingness to accept responsibility and to hold people accountable. And President Bush is not only unwilling to acknowledge error. He has thus far been unwilling to hold anyone in his administration accountable for the worst strategic and military miscalculations and mistakes in the history of the United States of America.

He is willing only to apologize for the alleged erratic behavior of a few low-ranking enlisted people, who he is scapegoating for his policy fiasco.

In December of 2000, even though I strongly disagreed with the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order a halt to the counting of legally cast ballots, I saw it as my duty to reaffirm my own strong belief that we are a nation of laws and not only accept the decision, but do what I could to prevent efforts to delegitimize George Bush as he took the oath of office as president.

I did not at that moment imagine that Bush would, in the presidency that ensued, demonstrate utter contempt for the rule of law and work at every turn to frustrate accountability…

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation’s trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable – and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, “We – even we here – hold the power, and bear the responsibility.”