May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face;
And the rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
NCAA Football
Last week was pretty good for MSU, but not for the rest of my teams (Auburn, Florida State, Toledo almost got Fresno State in double OT). Other than Ringer putting his face in the Heisman race with 200+ yards for the second consecutive week and scoring two more TD's (which is below his college football leading 16.5 point-per-game average) MSU didn't even look great. Hoyer needs to prove that all those rushes don't make him rusty during the game by completing more than half his passes for once. It's not like it's tough to hit Mark Dell or BJ Cunningham. Fortunately next year's QB battle between former Oklahoma Sooner Keith Nichol and Sophomore Kirk Cousins should yield a better starter, plus both receivers will be around for at least two more years and four star Freshman Fred Smith may start getting playing time next year. We should be set on skill players for quite some time. Losing Otis and Ringer will obviously hurt, but with a better QB and more talent in the pipes next year will certainly not be a rebuilding year.
This week against Indiana look for more of the same. If the Hoosiers can give up 224 yards rushing and 463 overall to a MAC team, they are in for a surprise when Ringer shows up. Barring some kind of injury or an absolute blowout, I expect Ringer to put up more than his 175 yard-per-game average and the MSU offense to click for 500+ total yards. Last year in EL they managed 52 points in a blowout, and there is no reason to expect that Indiana could stop that from happening again, especially without their entire starting backfield. MSU was also very close to putting up consecutive shutouts, and with an offense that's essentially based solely on Kellen Lewis, this is not a favorable scenario for Indiana. Final Predictions: Ringer gets his third consecutive game of 200 yards and three more TD's. Hoyer throws for 300 more and three TD's on a beat up Indiana secondary. Look for MSU's offensive game to be similar to the EMU game with a little more balance and a breakout game for the receivers.
Even with a good MSU defense, look for another shootout- Final Score: MSU 48 Indiana 20
UM @ Wisconsin
Bad news for Michigan. Giving up 35 points against a poor ND team does not bode well for the Wolverines. Wisconsin leads UMich in every single offensive statistical category and scoring defense. Had they played anyone worthwhile, they would have given up more yardage as well. Last week Wisconsin came out flat against a decent Fresno State team, but came up big when necessary. They will need to be better in the Big Ten. PJ Hill won't have as good a game against a tougher Michigan Defense, but Wisconsin is balanced enough to outscore an awful UM offense. U of M won't beat themselves again, but Wisconsin is a much better team than Notre Dame. Now that the QB and RB situations are settled the Wolverines can finally start working on their system...next week. Wisconsin's secondary is much better than ND's, but I expect Michigan to be the best they've been this year.
Final Score: UM 17 Wisconsin 31
This week against Indiana look for more of the same. If the Hoosiers can give up 224 yards rushing and 463 overall to a MAC team, they are in for a surprise when Ringer shows up. Barring some kind of injury or an absolute blowout, I expect Ringer to put up more than his 175 yard-per-game average and the MSU offense to click for 500+ total yards. Last year in EL they managed 52 points in a blowout, and there is no reason to expect that Indiana could stop that from happening again, especially without their entire starting backfield. MSU was also very close to putting up consecutive shutouts, and with an offense that's essentially based solely on Kellen Lewis, this is not a favorable scenario for Indiana. Final Predictions: Ringer gets his third consecutive game of 200 yards and three more TD's. Hoyer throws for 300 more and three TD's on a beat up Indiana secondary. Look for MSU's offensive game to be similar to the EMU game with a little more balance and a breakout game for the receivers.
Even with a good MSU defense, look for another shootout- Final Score: MSU 48 Indiana 20
UM @ Wisconsin
Bad news for Michigan. Giving up 35 points against a poor ND team does not bode well for the Wolverines. Wisconsin leads UMich in every single offensive statistical category and scoring defense. Had they played anyone worthwhile, they would have given up more yardage as well. Last week Wisconsin came out flat against a decent Fresno State team, but came up big when necessary. They will need to be better in the Big Ten. PJ Hill won't have as good a game against a tougher Michigan Defense, but Wisconsin is balanced enough to outscore an awful UM offense. U of M won't beat themselves again, but Wisconsin is a much better team than Notre Dame. Now that the QB and RB situations are settled the Wolverines can finally start working on their system...next week. Wisconsin's secondary is much better than ND's, but I expect Michigan to be the best they've been this year.
Final Score: UM 17 Wisconsin 31
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Clarifications, explanations, embarkations... you get the point.
I have a response that addresses most of your points. I argue that the government should do nothing. Let the market work itself out. No government incentive or legislation can work as well as letting the market determine that fossil fuels are costly and other sources are necessary.
The framework is already in place to cap consumption in a way that the public finds acceptable. It’s called the free market, and that’s all I’ve been arguing for. Just let prices be real unsubsidized market prices (or, even better, tax consumption of fossil fuels to pay for their unaccounted for environmental costs). There is no single idea to come up with or law to pass, just stop subsidizing it. Obviously at this point a tax would be hard to swallow, so perhaps that step would come a little later. I completely agree that it is a mentality shift, but I’m saying that the best way to change people’s minds is to make doing whatever they’re doing not worth it anymore. Any amount of education on the matter is helpful, but that alone will not affect anything drastically enough for the kind of change that is necessary.
T Boone Pickens is the perfect example. The government is giving him nothing for his wind ideas. He is pursuing them because there is a supply of wind and a demand for energy. When the demand for energy puts it’s price (which is unarguably the best way to determine preferences, for proof see the USSR circa 1989) over that of the cost of wind then people will build wind plants and use that as their source of energy. It’s pretty obvious to me that, on a large scale, people will do whatever they can to get what they want as cheaply as possible without regard for the costs that are not incurred on them (most often environmental costs, but also in the form of sweatshops and blood diamonds). Make oil expensive (just by removing subsidies) and people will move on.
I suppose that when I said the government has played it’s role as well as can be expected I was using some sarcasm. I really believe that this is none of the government’s business see the Sherman Act as an indication of what I believe should be the extent of the government’s power in the energy sector.
I would say that the government at this point is subsidizing for a few reasons.
1. Cheap energy as well as infrastructure in general makes for a very successful economy.
2. The real cost of using fossil fuels was unknown until recently (arguably 9/11/2001 or as late as 2004 when Al Gore went crazy), the government has only had one president and seven years to act on this knowledge, and this particular president is not well suited for this problem (he was elected before widespread and specific knowledge on the subject so voter preferences could not have been represented).
3. There is indecisiveness amongst legislators as to the correct course of action, which leads to my last point which agrees with you.
4. Elected officials are scared that doing what is best will not be popular and will hurt their chances of being elected again. This is why the biggest gains have been made outside the political realm i.e. Pickens and Al Gore (a politician who is no longer vying for public office).
My argument also eliminates most possibilities of corruption. Government leaders cannot be profiting from a market that they do not influence.
Now, about the Bush presidency. I agree that he has not lived up to his expectations as president. I believe that he has had some difficulty to deal with that under the circumstances make me glad it was he who was elected and not Gore or Kerry. There have also been some times this second term that have made me wish he were not our president. The biggest point that I agree with you on is that it appears as though he is not willing to take the necessary steps to do what is best for the country, but with the stipulation that I believe that the US is still the best and most important country in the world even after 8 years of his leadership, which certainly says something.
I think that transparency is a good thing, I have not qualms with that. But I also believe that the government should do as little as possible. Basically I want the government to leave me alone until I really need it. This creates a responsible, strong, and healthy society. Protecting and caring for a child too much will contribute to the child being lazy, scared, and smothered. I feel that Americans are becoming all of these things, and that a big-government democrat will make it much worse. Now, a conservative on the issue of energy will not be of much use either, as they are unlikely to be willing to damage the economy by removing subsidies (even though the reduced taxes, if spent properly, would greatly help the economy) and little will be accomplished.(Although I can’t see Obama doing that either).
I referenced Three-Mile Island simply because it’s the only nuclear disaster in American history. I have no thoughts on Chernobyl as the Russians have a rather long history of disastrous failures. France is a better example, as it is run almost completely on nuclear power and still has some citizens who are cancer free! I guess with the nuclear thing I was just saying that beyond the risk associated with all things, nuclear power is safe. People cutting corners and companies worried about profits and shortchanging safety precautions is a very small concern in that industry. What they build are significant enough that not even NASA comes anywhere close to their budget. I’d even argue that as far as occupational safety goes, it is easily the best. The process to extract coal and oil and transport it are MUCH more dangerous than extracting and transporting uranium, mostly because of the scale, you need so much more of it.
The quality of my writing and thinking has declined significantly. You may disregard the last paragraph especially as I feel it is a shameful representation of my thoughts. I will wait in earnest for your response regarding both my 5 ideas and this piece. That is all. Goodnight.
The framework is already in place to cap consumption in a way that the public finds acceptable. It’s called the free market, and that’s all I’ve been arguing for. Just let prices be real unsubsidized market prices (or, even better, tax consumption of fossil fuels to pay for their unaccounted for environmental costs). There is no single idea to come up with or law to pass, just stop subsidizing it. Obviously at this point a tax would be hard to swallow, so perhaps that step would come a little later. I completely agree that it is a mentality shift, but I’m saying that the best way to change people’s minds is to make doing whatever they’re doing not worth it anymore. Any amount of education on the matter is helpful, but that alone will not affect anything drastically enough for the kind of change that is necessary.
T Boone Pickens is the perfect example. The government is giving him nothing for his wind ideas. He is pursuing them because there is a supply of wind and a demand for energy. When the demand for energy puts it’s price (which is unarguably the best way to determine preferences, for proof see the USSR circa 1989) over that of the cost of wind then people will build wind plants and use that as their source of energy. It’s pretty obvious to me that, on a large scale, people will do whatever they can to get what they want as cheaply as possible without regard for the costs that are not incurred on them (most often environmental costs, but also in the form of sweatshops and blood diamonds). Make oil expensive (just by removing subsidies) and people will move on.
I suppose that when I said the government has played it’s role as well as can be expected I was using some sarcasm. I really believe that this is none of the government’s business see the Sherman Act as an indication of what I believe should be the extent of the government’s power in the energy sector.
I would say that the government at this point is subsidizing for a few reasons.
1. Cheap energy as well as infrastructure in general makes for a very successful economy.
2. The real cost of using fossil fuels was unknown until recently (arguably 9/11/2001 or as late as 2004 when Al Gore went crazy), the government has only had one president and seven years to act on this knowledge, and this particular president is not well suited for this problem (he was elected before widespread and specific knowledge on the subject so voter preferences could not have been represented).
3. There is indecisiveness amongst legislators as to the correct course of action, which leads to my last point which agrees with you.
4. Elected officials are scared that doing what is best will not be popular and will hurt their chances of being elected again. This is why the biggest gains have been made outside the political realm i.e. Pickens and Al Gore (a politician who is no longer vying for public office).
My argument also eliminates most possibilities of corruption. Government leaders cannot be profiting from a market that they do not influence.
Now, about the Bush presidency. I agree that he has not lived up to his expectations as president. I believe that he has had some difficulty to deal with that under the circumstances make me glad it was he who was elected and not Gore or Kerry. There have also been some times this second term that have made me wish he were not our president. The biggest point that I agree with you on is that it appears as though he is not willing to take the necessary steps to do what is best for the country, but with the stipulation that I believe that the US is still the best and most important country in the world even after 8 years of his leadership, which certainly says something.
I think that transparency is a good thing, I have not qualms with that. But I also believe that the government should do as little as possible. Basically I want the government to leave me alone until I really need it. This creates a responsible, strong, and healthy society. Protecting and caring for a child too much will contribute to the child being lazy, scared, and smothered. I feel that Americans are becoming all of these things, and that a big-government democrat will make it much worse. Now, a conservative on the issue of energy will not be of much use either, as they are unlikely to be willing to damage the economy by removing subsidies (even though the reduced taxes, if spent properly, would greatly help the economy) and little will be accomplished.(Although I can’t see Obama doing that either).
I referenced Three-Mile Island simply because it’s the only nuclear disaster in American history. I have no thoughts on Chernobyl as the Russians have a rather long history of disastrous failures. France is a better example, as it is run almost completely on nuclear power and still has some citizens who are cancer free! I guess with the nuclear thing I was just saying that beyond the risk associated with all things, nuclear power is safe. People cutting corners and companies worried about profits and shortchanging safety precautions is a very small concern in that industry. What they build are significant enough that not even NASA comes anywhere close to their budget. I’d even argue that as far as occupational safety goes, it is easily the best. The process to extract coal and oil and transport it are MUCH more dangerous than extracting and transporting uranium, mostly because of the scale, you need so much more of it.
The quality of my writing and thinking has declined significantly. You may disregard the last paragraph especially as I feel it is a shameful representation of my thoughts. I will wait in earnest for your response regarding both my 5 ideas and this piece. That is all. Goodnight.
Rebuttal
His wind plan is fine, and natural gas for buses and trucks is a great idea, but he needs to do one thing before he convinces me: Introduce a plan that reduces our consumption, not just passes it on to another method of production.
First off, what kind of plan that puts a cap on energy consumption do you think would be publicly accepted in today’s society?! That issue has to be changed gradually and must take place in the minds of the American individual. It is a mentality shift. The Europeans are well ahead of us in the sense that they understand that consumption must come at a high cost. We have been benefitting from low cost and an absence of a sense of responsibility on a global level. Considering the length of time that this would take, together with the stubbornness of the American government (or any government for that matter) when it comes to passing any legislation, as well as the looming environmental concerns that surround this issue, I don’t see any problem with taking these immediate steps towards ‘passing it on to another method of production.’ This is not to take away from your point that it is essentially a consumption/demand problem. However, if we make a push towards the use of these alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, etc, the immediate benefits include not only a reduced dependency on oil (both foreign and domestic) and a significant spending decrease once the new infrastructure is in place, but it would also allow the American people to shift its focus to efforts of clean coal and reducing our overall use of costly, inefficient, and environmentally harmful technologies over the next decade. Think about it – in order to solve this problem, we can’t wait to come up with the world’s most brilliant, innovative idea that everybody likes (getting the people and government’s approval is of major importance) that decreases consumption/demand and maximizes environmental safety. In order to steadily reduce the problem and ride the wave of increased environmental concern, we need to shift our technologies away from costly (both in a monetary sense, and in an environmental sense) energy sources, towards those that help reduce the immediacy of environmental issues and allow the problem to take on a more manageable frame. You can’t just pass a law to ban smoking in an effort to make people quit – you have to first improve awareness and educate the people about its hazards, provide them with alternatives and with effective ways to make them quit or deter them from it, and slowly make it more costly for them to continue to smoke. A bad analogy for this discussion – but hopefully you get my point.
It really isn't the government's job to administer energy, what could they really do? Mandate that alternative energy be used no matter the cost? That's arguably just as bad as doing nothing at all.
My first thought was, well what is the governments role really? What about the DOE – don’t they play a role in guiding our nation’s energy consumption and give themselves the responsibility of providing leadership on energy issues at all levels. But why don’t we look at what they have to say about it…
(taken straight from the DOE’s website)
“The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. The Department's strategic goals to achieve the mission are designed to deliver results along five strategic themes:
-Energy Security: Promoting America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy
-Nuclear Security: Ensuring America’s nuclear security (*I’ve heard that this has been their chief concern over the past few decades - why that is so is debatable…*)
-Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Strengthening U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in science and technology
-Environmental Responsibility: Protecting the environment by providing a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production
-Management Excellence: Enabling the mission through sound management”
Seems to me that the government, having the people’s best interest at heart – as it should – could work to provide more incentives for the use of clean & alternative fuel sources, and make it more difficult for the companies/individuals who dominate the energy market to maintain their influence. Shouldn’t we want to have viable (and essentially better) technologies be able to get to the consumer faster? I want to elaborate on this, and I could talk about the fluctuation in gas prices, but I don’t have time right now…
The government has played it's role as well as can be expected…
Really??
…and it's not Bush's fault that gas prices are finally rising to the point they should have been at years ago.
I was not implying that Bush is to blame - at least in particular. I was merely making a case for the idea that the government in general has not really been holding long-term sustainability as a priority for several decades now (note: democrats and republicans alike!). What I was implying was: “has the government really been that out of touch” (does the lack of enthusiasm for eco-friendly and more efficient energy sources in the past half-century show that they have really just been consistently overlooked by the ‘most powerful and influential nation in the world’), or have they, alternatively, “been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit?” (have they really been influenced by those who have so much invested in the oil-based infrastructure that they would feign ignorance or claim that there is not enough money, – since when has a government not been willing to spend money generously? – interest, or scientific research – biggest bullshit excuse in the politics – to support their legitimacy in order to make an easy buck and live high off the hog until the American public finally realizes that something is not right in the world???)
Had gas prices been at real market rates without subsidies since the last oil crisis, there would be a much more viable market for alternatives. This considered, any government that allowed gas prices to rise this high would be crucified for maiming the economy. Any rise in gas prices now has millions of people in a fit, when in reality, it's helpful to the economy in the long run because we're just paying the difference in taxes anyway, and with more expensive gas, taxes would decrease and allow more personal spending, making it more of a user charge (you use more, you pay more) than a broad tax.
I agree completely – now, the question is, if the Bush administration understand this idea and is willing to take a hit in the approval rating because they are seemingly ‘maiming the economy,’ then why stall progress and neglect to provide a pathway for the integration of new technologies?? I go back to my previous point here – it seems, to me at least, that they have to be in bed with the current energy big-shots and are working on their behalf, rather than in the best interest of the American public and for long-term sustainability.
I'm tired of the government being the scapegoat…It's not the government's problem to fix, it's ours.
The government is always the people’s scapegoat, whether it’s primarily republican or democrat-based. These people are in the positions they are in to act as representatives of the people, right? People not seeing any positive results = people voicing anger against elected leadership. But if anyone can influence people to do something it’s a leader. So don’t you think that it’s time for elected officials to own up to that leadership role on a regular basis, and not just in times of war or crisis? Don’t you think that the government ought to finally stop playing the silent ‘Big Brother’ role? I don’t really want to bring personal political feelings on the election into this discussion, but something that intrigues me about Obama is the fact that he has repeatedly said (yes, saying is not doing, but you have to have faith – right?) that he will push for government transparency in all facets. I believe that this could be a positive step in the American history as we might see a government that doesn’t actually work for the people, but also with the people and by the people! A government that actually shows what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why they are doing it sounds very progressive, but in today’s day and age, doesn’t it seem practical? I may just be dreaming here, but it’s cool to imagine it!!
Nuclear energy is an entirely viable option at this point.
Yes, I agree with that! I actually posted this article in an effort to get the ball rolling about nuclear energy and the pros and cons surrounding it - ie: waste issues and the time it takes to develop nuclear facilities. What caught my eye in particular was the line, “US regulators have ignored expert safety advice in an attempt to cut corners and fast track the completion of a $4 billion nuclear fuel facility currently under construction near Aiken, South Carolina.” Normally, to my understanding, there are innumerable regulations that must be approved by health and safety professionals (usually through various government departments or agencies) and upheld before further progress can be made and such facilities can open. I mean, you can’t even open a restaurant or small business without a safety inspector’s approval or an OSHA representative inspecting it first, and I see no reason for a nuclear facility to be any different. For this reason, nuclear power is usually criticized because it takes so long to develop – usually 10 years, if not more. The idea that the regulators themselves may be ignoring safety advise in order to allow the facility in SC to open sooner is scary.
That article is ridiculous. The government doesn't build nuclear plants, they're built and run by private firms.
I fail to see how this is ‘rediculous.’ Of course the government does not build them or run them. However, the federal government works with the contractor, in a ‘project management’ role. Fortunately for American citizens, the contractor, the government Energy Department, and state Ecology Department all have quality control systems in place in order to determine if there are any problems or causes for concern. Of course the people building it want to be meticulous and very detail oriented. However, the nature of man is to make mistakes on occasion – human error. The problems are supposed to be caught and corrected to the satisfaction of state inspectors, and the state will not issue a permit for any part of the facility until it is certain it is safe to operate. But still, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hushing-up a ‘highly critical assessment’ of a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility’s engineering (designed for the purpose of converting recovered plutonium from nuclear warheads into fuel rods for use in civil nuclear power) by its top independent reviewer is a ‘rediculous’ piece of information. I’m sorry, but I am under the impression that things like this are fairly common – even in today’s day and age. Just spend a day at any automotive factory in metro-Detriot and you will be able to note a hundred safety hazards – and those are major facilities, employing thousands of people. I’m sure there are hundreds of individuals charged with the task of noting the hazards of each job and solving them. But hey, time is money! Sometimes the costs are too high and the value of the workers too less. As bad as it sounds, some hazards are worth the risk. It wouldn’t surprise me if the private firms building these facilities took a few liberties or cut some corners in order to get around seemingly needless regulations - yes even for something this significant. Look at NASA and how many problems happen with the shuttles. To this day there are space missions that remain grounded because of errors. Also, there have been many recorded accidents and near-disasters in the past caused by small, unnoticed errors. I’m sure, that there have been many mistakes that have gone unnoticed in the past, too!
Any new plant in the US would exceed the safety of plants built during the last nuclear boom, and with the largest nuclear accident in the US being three mile island (an incident which caused ZERO deaths) how risky do they think these plants will be?
Yes, nobody died as a direct result of such nuclear accidents. But remember, both the Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl incident were the result of a combination of design shortcomings AND operator error. Also, the statistical lack of mortality does not prove that there is no possibility for health effects. Deterministic (or threshold) effects, such as those experienced by an individual after acute exposure to high doses of radiation include skin burns, damage to bone marrow, and sterility (as seen in the infamous Chernobyl incident). However, there is the risk of stochastic (non-threshold) effects, such as increased susceptibility to cancerous growths. Various comprehensive studies that have been done do not show an increased risk in cancer mortality for individuals in close proximity to any of the 62 nuclear facilities in the US, however the World Health Organization asserts that such studies includes large areas and large populations – and in doing so, would not be able to detect smaller-range increases in cancer onset. Note that I also have not yet mentioned the possibility of environmental impact, such as the effects of water and soil contamination, and the possible negative impact that could develop as such effects linger. Indeed, there has been a considerable effort to improve the standards of currently operating facilities and of future plants. What is important to note, though, is that the extreme difficulty to insure the plants pushes the already high costs of these facilities as well! With that, once the private contractors secure major insurance policies, they are essentially wiped clean of any risk of blame – for at that time, the blame will most-likely fall on the plant workers themselves.
First off, what kind of plan that puts a cap on energy consumption do you think would be publicly accepted in today’s society?! That issue has to be changed gradually and must take place in the minds of the American individual. It is a mentality shift. The Europeans are well ahead of us in the sense that they understand that consumption must come at a high cost. We have been benefitting from low cost and an absence of a sense of responsibility on a global level. Considering the length of time that this would take, together with the stubbornness of the American government (or any government for that matter) when it comes to passing any legislation, as well as the looming environmental concerns that surround this issue, I don’t see any problem with taking these immediate steps towards ‘passing it on to another method of production.’ This is not to take away from your point that it is essentially a consumption/demand problem. However, if we make a push towards the use of these alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, etc, the immediate benefits include not only a reduced dependency on oil (both foreign and domestic) and a significant spending decrease once the new infrastructure is in place, but it would also allow the American people to shift its focus to efforts of clean coal and reducing our overall use of costly, inefficient, and environmentally harmful technologies over the next decade. Think about it – in order to solve this problem, we can’t wait to come up with the world’s most brilliant, innovative idea that everybody likes (getting the people and government’s approval is of major importance) that decreases consumption/demand and maximizes environmental safety. In order to steadily reduce the problem and ride the wave of increased environmental concern, we need to shift our technologies away from costly (both in a monetary sense, and in an environmental sense) energy sources, towards those that help reduce the immediacy of environmental issues and allow the problem to take on a more manageable frame. You can’t just pass a law to ban smoking in an effort to make people quit – you have to first improve awareness and educate the people about its hazards, provide them with alternatives and with effective ways to make them quit or deter them from it, and slowly make it more costly for them to continue to smoke. A bad analogy for this discussion – but hopefully you get my point.
It really isn't the government's job to administer energy, what could they really do? Mandate that alternative energy be used no matter the cost? That's arguably just as bad as doing nothing at all.
My first thought was, well what is the governments role really? What about the DOE – don’t they play a role in guiding our nation’s energy consumption and give themselves the responsibility of providing leadership on energy issues at all levels. But why don’t we look at what they have to say about it…
(taken straight from the DOE’s website)
“The Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States; to promote scientific and technological innovation in support of that mission; and to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. The Department's strategic goals to achieve the mission are designed to deliver results along five strategic themes:
-Energy Security: Promoting America’s energy security through reliable, clean, and affordable energy
-Nuclear Security: Ensuring America’s nuclear security (*I’ve heard that this has been their chief concern over the past few decades - why that is so is debatable…*)
-Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Strengthening U.S. scientific discovery, economic competitiveness, and improving quality of life through innovations in science and technology
-Environmental Responsibility: Protecting the environment by providing a responsible resolution to the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons production
-Management Excellence: Enabling the mission through sound management”
Seems to me that the government, having the people’s best interest at heart – as it should – could work to provide more incentives for the use of clean & alternative fuel sources, and make it more difficult for the companies/individuals who dominate the energy market to maintain their influence. Shouldn’t we want to have viable (and essentially better) technologies be able to get to the consumer faster? I want to elaborate on this, and I could talk about the fluctuation in gas prices, but I don’t have time right now…
The government has played it's role as well as can be expected…
Really??
…and it's not Bush's fault that gas prices are finally rising to the point they should have been at years ago.
I was not implying that Bush is to blame - at least in particular. I was merely making a case for the idea that the government in general has not really been holding long-term sustainability as a priority for several decades now (note: democrats and republicans alike!). What I was implying was: “has the government really been that out of touch” (does the lack of enthusiasm for eco-friendly and more efficient energy sources in the past half-century show that they have really just been consistently overlooked by the ‘most powerful and influential nation in the world’), or have they, alternatively, “been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit?” (have they really been influenced by those who have so much invested in the oil-based infrastructure that they would feign ignorance or claim that there is not enough money, – since when has a government not been willing to spend money generously? – interest, or scientific research – biggest bullshit excuse in the politics – to support their legitimacy in order to make an easy buck and live high off the hog until the American public finally realizes that something is not right in the world???)
Had gas prices been at real market rates without subsidies since the last oil crisis, there would be a much more viable market for alternatives. This considered, any government that allowed gas prices to rise this high would be crucified for maiming the economy. Any rise in gas prices now has millions of people in a fit, when in reality, it's helpful to the economy in the long run because we're just paying the difference in taxes anyway, and with more expensive gas, taxes would decrease and allow more personal spending, making it more of a user charge (you use more, you pay more) than a broad tax.
I agree completely – now, the question is, if the Bush administration understand this idea and is willing to take a hit in the approval rating because they are seemingly ‘maiming the economy,’ then why stall progress and neglect to provide a pathway for the integration of new technologies?? I go back to my previous point here – it seems, to me at least, that they have to be in bed with the current energy big-shots and are working on their behalf, rather than in the best interest of the American public and for long-term sustainability.
I'm tired of the government being the scapegoat…It's not the government's problem to fix, it's ours.
The government is always the people’s scapegoat, whether it’s primarily republican or democrat-based. These people are in the positions they are in to act as representatives of the people, right? People not seeing any positive results = people voicing anger against elected leadership. But if anyone can influence people to do something it’s a leader. So don’t you think that it’s time for elected officials to own up to that leadership role on a regular basis, and not just in times of war or crisis? Don’t you think that the government ought to finally stop playing the silent ‘Big Brother’ role? I don’t really want to bring personal political feelings on the election into this discussion, but something that intrigues me about Obama is the fact that he has repeatedly said (yes, saying is not doing, but you have to have faith – right?) that he will push for government transparency in all facets. I believe that this could be a positive step in the American history as we might see a government that doesn’t actually work for the people, but also with the people and by the people! A government that actually shows what they are doing, how they are doing it, and why they are doing it sounds very progressive, but in today’s day and age, doesn’t it seem practical? I may just be dreaming here, but it’s cool to imagine it!!
Nuclear energy is an entirely viable option at this point.
Yes, I agree with that! I actually posted this article in an effort to get the ball rolling about nuclear energy and the pros and cons surrounding it - ie: waste issues and the time it takes to develop nuclear facilities. What caught my eye in particular was the line, “US regulators have ignored expert safety advice in an attempt to cut corners and fast track the completion of a $4 billion nuclear fuel facility currently under construction near Aiken, South Carolina.” Normally, to my understanding, there are innumerable regulations that must be approved by health and safety professionals (usually through various government departments or agencies) and upheld before further progress can be made and such facilities can open. I mean, you can’t even open a restaurant or small business without a safety inspector’s approval or an OSHA representative inspecting it first, and I see no reason for a nuclear facility to be any different. For this reason, nuclear power is usually criticized because it takes so long to develop – usually 10 years, if not more. The idea that the regulators themselves may be ignoring safety advise in order to allow the facility in SC to open sooner is scary.
That article is ridiculous. The government doesn't build nuclear plants, they're built and run by private firms.
I fail to see how this is ‘rediculous.’ Of course the government does not build them or run them. However, the federal government works with the contractor, in a ‘project management’ role. Fortunately for American citizens, the contractor, the government Energy Department, and state Ecology Department all have quality control systems in place in order to determine if there are any problems or causes for concern. Of course the people building it want to be meticulous and very detail oriented. However, the nature of man is to make mistakes on occasion – human error. The problems are supposed to be caught and corrected to the satisfaction of state inspectors, and the state will not issue a permit for any part of the facility until it is certain it is safe to operate. But still, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hushing-up a ‘highly critical assessment’ of a mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility’s engineering (designed for the purpose of converting recovered plutonium from nuclear warheads into fuel rods for use in civil nuclear power) by its top independent reviewer is a ‘rediculous’ piece of information. I’m sorry, but I am under the impression that things like this are fairly common – even in today’s day and age. Just spend a day at any automotive factory in metro-Detriot and you will be able to note a hundred safety hazards – and those are major facilities, employing thousands of people. I’m sure there are hundreds of individuals charged with the task of noting the hazards of each job and solving them. But hey, time is money! Sometimes the costs are too high and the value of the workers too less. As bad as it sounds, some hazards are worth the risk. It wouldn’t surprise me if the private firms building these facilities took a few liberties or cut some corners in order to get around seemingly needless regulations - yes even for something this significant. Look at NASA and how many problems happen with the shuttles. To this day there are space missions that remain grounded because of errors. Also, there have been many recorded accidents and near-disasters in the past caused by small, unnoticed errors. I’m sure, that there have been many mistakes that have gone unnoticed in the past, too!
Any new plant in the US would exceed the safety of plants built during the last nuclear boom, and with the largest nuclear accident in the US being three mile island (an incident which caused ZERO deaths) how risky do they think these plants will be?
Yes, nobody died as a direct result of such nuclear accidents. But remember, both the Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl incident were the result of a combination of design shortcomings AND operator error. Also, the statistical lack of mortality does not prove that there is no possibility for health effects. Deterministic (or threshold) effects, such as those experienced by an individual after acute exposure to high doses of radiation include skin burns, damage to bone marrow, and sterility (as seen in the infamous Chernobyl incident). However, there is the risk of stochastic (non-threshold) effects, such as increased susceptibility to cancerous growths. Various comprehensive studies that have been done do not show an increased risk in cancer mortality for individuals in close proximity to any of the 62 nuclear facilities in the US, however the World Health Organization asserts that such studies includes large areas and large populations – and in doing so, would not be able to detect smaller-range increases in cancer onset. Note that I also have not yet mentioned the possibility of environmental impact, such as the effects of water and soil contamination, and the possible negative impact that could develop as such effects linger. Indeed, there has been a considerable effort to improve the standards of currently operating facilities and of future plants. What is important to note, though, is that the extreme difficulty to insure the plants pushes the already high costs of these facilities as well! With that, once the private contractors secure major insurance policies, they are essentially wiped clean of any risk of blame – for at that time, the blame will most-likely fall on the plant workers themselves.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Energy
Here are my top 5 ideas on the energy crisis:
1. Reduce consumption. Allow gas prices to rise to unsubsidized levels and make people pay the market price. This will be a burden at first, but over time people will begin to use their money on alternatives such as inner city real estate (gentrification is certainly nothing to be frowned upon) and electric/mass transit. This allows us to decrease our dependence on oil without simply shifting it to some other resource where we will come across the same problem. I agree with T Boone Pickens in that natural gas is a solid alternative for large vehicles. Aside from transportation, proper building codes that promote good architectural practices would decrease the HUGE amount of energy spent heating and cooling buildings. This is beginning to happen in more progressive cities but it should be universal, maintaining buildings uses twice as much energy as the entire transportation sector.
2. Reduce the use of coal as a primary energy fuel and replace it with nuclear power. This is a temporary solution because nuclear fuel is just as finite as coal, but it's much better for the environment and will greatly increase our energy capacity. We can do this by simply not building any more coal plants. Any plant currently being built can be completed, but future demands are to be met by nuclear or renewable sources. Coal is not a viable solution anymore.
3. Ban plastic. Nothing good is made of plastic. This isn't entirely true, but it's harmful to produce and generates a lot of waste and it's not always the best material to use, it just happens to be cheap. Quit making and buying cheap things, disposable is the worst concept that I can think of. What could possibly be more short-sighted. With the reduction of plastic goods, reliance on Chinese manufacturing would decrease as well. I personally don't want to rely on China for anything.
4. Quit bailing out airlines. Nothing pollutes quite like airplanes. Everywhere else uses high-speed trains, why don't we? Because we hate trains? Unacceptable. Build high-speed trains that can be run on alternative fuels that will both pollute less and carry more people. If you're worried about all those miles of track that would cross the landscape, just remember how big a freaking airport is and imagine lining them all up next to each other across the country. You get the idea. One thing the government does that is irritating is that it supports the inefficient airline industry. Cheap flights are good for the economy, but flying in general is just a bad idea. If the economy can't support it, that says something.
5. Eliminate the suburbs. I live in the suburbs, I like them. But they suck. I have a job literally as close as possible to my house, and I HAVE to drive there. There is no decent infrastructure to walk/bike there (I refuse to bicycle on the freeway service drive), this is a waste. People need to man up and live closer together and closer to their workplace. The safety and luxury of the suburbs need to be translated to a more urban setting. In Latin American cities, the most expensive and safest property is in the middle of the city, like NYC. This is ideal, increased density saves tremendous amounts of energy. People appreciate green space more and treat it with more respect when there's less of it. Suburbs are wasteful and according to current research at Wayne State, they are actually a major contributor to the kind of lifestyle that led to the increase in American obesity.
That's enough for now...maybe I will have some more this weekend, but I had something else going in my mind today, I think I'm tackling universal healthcare next.
Goodnight
1. Reduce consumption. Allow gas prices to rise to unsubsidized levels and make people pay the market price. This will be a burden at first, but over time people will begin to use their money on alternatives such as inner city real estate (gentrification is certainly nothing to be frowned upon) and electric/mass transit. This allows us to decrease our dependence on oil without simply shifting it to some other resource where we will come across the same problem. I agree with T Boone Pickens in that natural gas is a solid alternative for large vehicles. Aside from transportation, proper building codes that promote good architectural practices would decrease the HUGE amount of energy spent heating and cooling buildings. This is beginning to happen in more progressive cities but it should be universal, maintaining buildings uses twice as much energy as the entire transportation sector.
2. Reduce the use of coal as a primary energy fuel and replace it with nuclear power. This is a temporary solution because nuclear fuel is just as finite as coal, but it's much better for the environment and will greatly increase our energy capacity. We can do this by simply not building any more coal plants. Any plant currently being built can be completed, but future demands are to be met by nuclear or renewable sources. Coal is not a viable solution anymore.
3. Ban plastic. Nothing good is made of plastic. This isn't entirely true, but it's harmful to produce and generates a lot of waste and it's not always the best material to use, it just happens to be cheap. Quit making and buying cheap things, disposable is the worst concept that I can think of. What could possibly be more short-sighted. With the reduction of plastic goods, reliance on Chinese manufacturing would decrease as well. I personally don't want to rely on China for anything.
4. Quit bailing out airlines. Nothing pollutes quite like airplanes. Everywhere else uses high-speed trains, why don't we? Because we hate trains? Unacceptable. Build high-speed trains that can be run on alternative fuels that will both pollute less and carry more people. If you're worried about all those miles of track that would cross the landscape, just remember how big a freaking airport is and imagine lining them all up next to each other across the country. You get the idea. One thing the government does that is irritating is that it supports the inefficient airline industry. Cheap flights are good for the economy, but flying in general is just a bad idea. If the economy can't support it, that says something.
5. Eliminate the suburbs. I live in the suburbs, I like them. But they suck. I have a job literally as close as possible to my house, and I HAVE to drive there. There is no decent infrastructure to walk/bike there (I refuse to bicycle on the freeway service drive), this is a waste. People need to man up and live closer together and closer to their workplace. The safety and luxury of the suburbs need to be translated to a more urban setting. In Latin American cities, the most expensive and safest property is in the middle of the city, like NYC. This is ideal, increased density saves tremendous amounts of energy. People appreciate green space more and treat it with more respect when there's less of it. Suburbs are wasteful and according to current research at Wayne State, they are actually a major contributor to the kind of lifestyle that led to the increase in American obesity.
That's enough for now...maybe I will have some more this weekend, but I had something else going in my mind today, I think I'm tackling universal healthcare next.
Goodnight
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Efficient Energy...but at what cost?
See the post here taken from a Public Health blog called 'The Pump Handle,' which it's safe to say I will use as a reference fairly often...
http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/what-the-hell-its-only-a-nuclear-facility/#more-1703
Now, I'm all for promoting efficient energy methods - including nuclear power - but the issues mentioned here raise a lot of red flags. If we want clean, renewable energy, then we sure as heck had better use the best possible methods and technologies when developing such an infrastructure - otherwise, we will just be leaving ourselves with more problems in the future, with a lot of pissed off citizens, and a really big bill to pay. As this guy said, "Tempest in a teapot? Well, it’s a nuclear teapot and I’m not exactly up for a nuclear tempest to go with it." I understand the growing national (and global) concern and sense of urgency surrounding energy and environmental issues, but we can't afford to be clumsy with these matters. This administration clearly seems appears to have a very limited perspective on such issues, though. I hope that the next one will actually consider such improvements to be a priority and approach it responsibly, rather than allow their actions to be dictated by big oil companies...
Here's an interesting clip to check out that might give you a new perspective as well: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1641244028/bclid1641831933/bctid1653634930
Why aren't we making more of an effort to take advantage of such an abundant resource as wind is across the Great Plains?? It's so obvious a solution and we're just considering it now? It's enough to make one wonder - has the government really been that out of touch, or have they been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit? Either way, it's a shame...
If you want to learn more about the worlds newest renewable energy technologies, check out: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/
It provides a wide variety of information that should prove to be quite useful in the future as we move ever closer to the wide-spread use of environmentally friendly energy sources.
http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/what-the-hell-its-only-a-nuclear-facility/#more-1703
Now, I'm all for promoting efficient energy methods - including nuclear power - but the issues mentioned here raise a lot of red flags. If we want clean, renewable energy, then we sure as heck had better use the best possible methods and technologies when developing such an infrastructure - otherwise, we will just be leaving ourselves with more problems in the future, with a lot of pissed off citizens, and a really big bill to pay. As this guy said, "Tempest in a teapot? Well, it’s a nuclear teapot and I’m not exactly up for a nuclear tempest to go with it." I understand the growing national (and global) concern and sense of urgency surrounding energy and environmental issues, but we can't afford to be clumsy with these matters. This administration clearly seems appears to have a very limited perspective on such issues, though. I hope that the next one will actually consider such improvements to be a priority and approach it responsibly, rather than allow their actions to be dictated by big oil companies...
Here's an interesting clip to check out that might give you a new perspective as well: http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1641244028/bclid1641831933/bctid1653634930
Why aren't we making more of an effort to take advantage of such an abundant resource as wind is across the Great Plains?? It's so obvious a solution and we're just considering it now? It's enough to make one wonder - has the government really been that out of touch, or have they been stalling progress for their (or someones) benefit? Either way, it's a shame...
If you want to learn more about the worlds newest renewable energy technologies, check out: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/
It provides a wide variety of information that should prove to be quite useful in the future as we move ever closer to the wide-spread use of environmentally friendly energy sources.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
GWU
With classes at George Washington already in full swing things have already gotten to be pretty crazy. I'm really enjoying the one's I am taking though - for the most part. My professors all seem to be really cool and, of course, very knowledgeable of the subject matters that they will be teaching. One of them though, my Bio-Statistics professor, seems to enjoy moving at a very fast pace, so I hope I can catch on fairly quickly - especially since I haven't had any Statistics experience since my Sophomore year at U of M! We'll see though...
I've been busy meeting a bunch of other students here. There's a couple hundred in my incoming class, and we all have to take our required courses together during our first year - so that kinda helps. I'm sure we'll be getting to know one another pretty well over the next few months with our general courses being anywhere from 30 to 130 deep, forming study groups, workin on projects together, and hanging out during our spare time after class. But as we move into our second year, the classes get really tight - shrinking down to 10, or even 3-4 (especially in the Environmental & Occupational Health program, where I'm one of 7 new students this semester). Definitely could be interesting as I'm sure it will again prove to be another big adjustment period.
It's crazy cuz there's a such wide range of us. Some went to GW as undergrads, a few were from the Mid-west, and then you've got people from Florida, New York, California, Alaska, and various nations around the world! Though a bunch of us are in the 22-25 range, there are also those who are coming in after spending many years working. Some are doctors, lawyers, etc. and are in their 30's, 40's and even a couple in their 50's! It's cool and all, but I'm still not too used to my classmates having husbands/wives, kids, or being pregnant! Guess it's just another thing I'll have to adjust to!
I am getting used to the urban campus though, which isn't as 'urban' as I expected. DC is certainly no NYC - which is great! It's very easy for me to go for a run along the Potomac or take a trip to the Mount Vernon Campus (in Virginia) to use their rec. facilities if I get sick of the one right next to my appartment complex!! But it's still a big transition. I'm loving it so far though, and couldn't be happier...unless my friend and family were here to share this experience with me - in that case, I might be a little happier. But it's all good and every day is a new adventure, right?
I've been busy meeting a bunch of other students here. There's a couple hundred in my incoming class, and we all have to take our required courses together during our first year - so that kinda helps. I'm sure we'll be getting to know one another pretty well over the next few months with our general courses being anywhere from 30 to 130 deep, forming study groups, workin on projects together, and hanging out during our spare time after class. But as we move into our second year, the classes get really tight - shrinking down to 10, or even 3-4 (especially in the Environmental & Occupational Health program, where I'm one of 7 new students this semester). Definitely could be interesting as I'm sure it will again prove to be another big adjustment period.
It's crazy cuz there's a such wide range of us. Some went to GW as undergrads, a few were from the Mid-west, and then you've got people from Florida, New York, California, Alaska, and various nations around the world! Though a bunch of us are in the 22-25 range, there are also those who are coming in after spending many years working. Some are doctors, lawyers, etc. and are in their 30's, 40's and even a couple in their 50's! It's cool and all, but I'm still not too used to my classmates having husbands/wives, kids, or being pregnant! Guess it's just another thing I'll have to adjust to!
I am getting used to the urban campus though, which isn't as 'urban' as I expected. DC is certainly no NYC - which is great! It's very easy for me to go for a run along the Potomac or take a trip to the Mount Vernon Campus (in Virginia) to use their rec. facilities if I get sick of the one right next to my appartment complex!! But it's still a big transition. I'm loving it so far though, and couldn't be happier...unless my friend and family were here to share this experience with me - in that case, I might be a little happier. But it's all good and every day is a new adventure, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)