Comments on: Technology, not regulation, is the best way to tackle climate change Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: DellStator Tue, 10 Jun 2014 03:16:28 +0000 I’d be shocked if natural gas has replaced base line electrical generation or oil for vehicles in any significant quantities. Where are the decom coal elec plants, the gas powered cars? What carbon sources then has nat gas replaced?
Here’s what’s happened. MONEY. To save money we are using energy more wisely, conserving, etc.
Carbon reduction, pollution reduction, fossil fuel use, all are proxies for each other, and money is proxy for all of them. Cut costs, cut oil use, cut pollution, cut carbon use. Simple.
On to sour grapes:
I too was looking for some gee whiz technologies for reducing carbon. Not an ad for fracking, which, by the way, I have no problem with, IF the industry would practice a modicum of honesty and fiscal responsibility. In and around NYS frackers had a choice to drill rock within hundreds of feet of the surface, or thousands of feet down. They choose hundreds, where it’s possible to damage aquifers, to save a few bucks – they routinely drill down miles after all. In NYS frackers don’t pay enough in fees to even cap closed wells (NYS filled with open wells) much rather the cost to gov’t to license and monitor, or to counties to rebuild roads destroyed by thousands of big rigs. To be responsible it would cost a pitance of the tens of billions in net profit any of the half dozen energy cos in the US every quarter.

By: dd606 Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:23:35 +0000 xCanada2: Nuclear power got off on the wrong foot in the world, because US nuclear weapons material was first and foremost in the minds of our leaders”


Nuclear power didn’t get off on any foot, because the hysterical people that are running around freaking out about the world ending over global warming, were the same kind of hysterical people running around trying to stop nuclear power at all costs. The same people also tried to stop indigenous forest clear cutting at all costs, and are now the same people totally fine with clear cutting, so bio fuels can be grown.

The eco people seem to have severe memory loss issues.

By: tmc Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:55:14 +0000 @xcanada2 is absolutely right. In fact the Chinese are publically working on thorium reactors with support from Oak Ridge. They say they will power the world largest container shipping fleet with them first. Reuters even reported on this:  /breakout-thorium-idINL4N0FE21U20131220

I truly believe that the Chinese government is “by the people, for the people” and that the United States of Corporate America (The USCA) is by the Corporation and for the board of directors.

By: xcanada2 Sun, 08 Jun 2014 16:18:51 +0000 For some reason, the above URL is (repeatedly) rendered with an extra space. Please remove the space in “pu blic”, and it will work.

By: xcanada2 Sun, 08 Jun 2014 16:17:11 +0000 blic

By: xcanada2 Sun, 08 Jun 2014 16:15:10 +0000 Nuclear power got off on the wrong foot in the world, because US nuclear weapons material was first and foremost in the minds of our leaders. They actually fired Alvin Weinberg, head of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for overly pushing another type of reactor (Molten Salt Reactor) for civilian usage rather than the present high pressure Light Water Reactors. The LWR spread throughout the world. The MSR is much more appropriate for civilian use, being passively safe, but needs specific development.

See THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal by Robert Hargrave (2012), or, blic

A problem, apart from the negative public perception of all nuclear power which resulted from past poor decision making by the US, is that present out-of-control capitalism ensures that the fossil-fuel industry can kill off effective US advancement of Generation IV, passively safe nuclear power. Fortunately for the world, China/Russia may still bring such reactors to production.

A crash Generation IV nuclear reactor program in the US, with funding at a very small fraction of present “Defense” budget, could clean up the world, wipe out the need for fossil fuel, and kill of the fossil-fuel-autocracy which presently plagues the world’s people and the rest of nature.

By: dd606 Sat, 07 Jun 2014 17:31:45 +0000 The best way to tackle climate change, is to create a lot more psychiatrists, and have mandatory therapy for everybody who’s so scared of the world, that they have to constantly try and control every aspect of it.

By: CliffJA Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:30:35 +0000 Wow, I thought we were going to get an actual analysis of the very exciting technologies that are much cleaner for our environment. I’m of course talking about the dramatic drop in solar power combined with energy storage technologies. Or the improvements in electric vehicle technology which have the potential to eliminate oil use for most Americans in daily travel. Or LED lighting, which could dramatically reduce our energy usage in homes and businesses.

Instead we get…fracking? really? Mr. Salam, have you really looked into fracking? Do you know the incredible amounts of water needed to make fracking possible?

Water is absolutely critical for life sustainment and you want to lock it all up in the gas sector of the economy? California is in a persistent drought, what would happen if they accept fracking and gas producers are able to outbid farmers for water supplies? What happens to food prices when the crops run dry? And let’s please not get duped by the oil/gas industry. This fracking phenomenon will be a boom and then a bust, just like all the other oil and gas booms and busts that have come before.

Technology advancements are here and should be encouraged, just not from the people who wrecked our environment to begin with.

By: Calfri Fri, 06 Jun 2014 21:44:00 +0000 What we need are more people in the media who do not filter their understanding of the environment through the NRDC and similar extremist groups, who more often than not are way wrong on the science. Global warming is probably not a problem. There are many experts out there that do not believe in the catastrophist theory. Liberals just want to use the notion to achieve various ideological goals. What’s needed now, more than ever, are more energy options, not fewer. We need more coal, we need more gas, we need more oil, we shouldn’t turn the clock back on ethanol; and we need more nuclear. Russia wants to use energy to bully Europe and anyone else it can, and because European governments are controlled by environmental extremists, Europe’s leaders have a serious problems on their hands with energy. We can’t afford to become like them.

By: brotherkenny4 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 20:27:23 +0000 Ah, but, the same destructive fascists that control our government and media also control the commodity markets of guns, drugs and oil and use the government and media to kill technology that threatens the profit centers. So maybe technology can work but you really need a truly free market capitalism to accomplish the result. We have corporate oligarch with no intent on making life good for any underling, minion or slave. So technology will be killed like they are killing renewables. Those are your conservatives, or as I call them the fascist minions.