comments on nuclear energy

mike made a comment in the previous post about nuclear energy and my reply comment was so long that i'll post it here, instead:

given the current technological, infrastructure, and cost limitations of alternative energies, nuclear power is the best energy source option. most alternative energy sources are still in their relative infancy and need considerable technical development before they could meet US energy demands, demands which are growing every year.

in energy production, the main technological criteria of importance are energy conversion and economic efficiency. wind, solar, and hydroelectric power all have a low energy conversion efficiency, and large-scale solar farms, in particular, are presently cost ineffective compared with most other energy sources. the wind power industry has faced criticism from avian wildlife groups that have documented bird deaths from turbine blade accidents. hydroelectric power requires damming high-flow rivers, which has its own host of problems to contend with. (dam construction has faced more environmental group opposition than almost any other kind of large scale construction efforts in the last three decades.) plus, more dams are being blown up in the states than are being built. hydrogen power is, as far as i know, only a small-scale solution and lacks any infrastructure or publicly released plans for infrastructure development. all of these energy sources are viable, and more or less clean, but need more research and investment in order for them to mature to the point of being feasible and, more importantly, reliable.

nuclear waste transportation and disposal are big problems to which we have only short-term solutions. even so, nuclear energy is a more practical solution than the alternatives for meeting our energy demands for some of the reasons stated above. furthermore, nuclear fission only emits water vapor which, though it has been shown to contribute to global warming, does not have nearly as detrimental effect on the atmospheric balance as carbon monoxide or dioxide, or methane gas.

as i'm sure you know, we still have nuclear plants operating within the US, and there is considerable research on fusion at UT-Austin (and UW-Madison) and overseas, most notably at the ITER fusion reactor. research is continuing and nuclear energy is getting cleaner, less expensive, and safer.

these are some of the reasons why i feel nuclear energy is currently the best solution, and i hope we can learn from the advances of france and japan, as well as the mistakes that sweden has made. with the goal of energy independency through a non-greenhouse gas emitting energy source, nuclear power is the most viable solution.

Sphere: Related Content

giuliani OR the man who would be the 9-11 prom king

hello,

i've been thinking about the lack of giuliani's credentials as president of the united states of america. his main public service was as mayor of new york city at a time which happened to coincide with the worst domestic attacks the US has ever experienced, public service which ended a mere four months later. despite this, what part of his popularized legacy cannot be attributed to his handling of the aftermath of the september 11th attacks? true, the crime rates dropped in new york city during his term, but that followed a trend that almost every large US city was experiencing, and one that began with mayor dinkins before giuliani even took office.

i am not a giuliani expert, but it seems that the popularity he enjoyed immediately following the attacks mirrored the popularity that bush had at the same time. giuliani left office in 2002 before his legacy could actually reflect the work he did in new york outside of his role as mayor during 9-11. he also wasn't in a high enough position of power to exert that power towards unforgivable ends, as bush did with the iraq invasion.

by some accounts, bloomberg has been doing a better job for the city than giuliani did, with higher approval ratings. bloomberg's success may be the result of some initiatives that giuliani began but at least his approval ratings are based on his handling of typical mayoral responsibilities, and not a brief leadership role after an extreme event such as giuliani and 9-11.

besides, the group of people who one might expect to laud giuliani the loudest, the nyc firefighters, are actually pretty pissed with him right now. he declined to appear at the firefighter's union annual meeting recently as they have been vocal critics of how (in their eyes) he ceased conducting ground zero recovery efforts prematurely. and i've heard that giuliani as well as all but 2 republican candidates, have so far declined invitations to attend the youtube-sponsored debates, and the main reason giuliani has declined is bc his campaign managers are concerned about questions regarding the firefighters union opinion of him since he claims to have their support.

this is just another reason why the republicans will be trounced in november '08. compare giuliani with any of the democratic candidates, biden, gravel, edwards, clinton, and he can't hold a (sept. 11th "we stand as one") candle to their records.

who else do the republicans have? the cyborg mormon, mitt romney? good luck!

ps- if the twin towers fell in the middle of a forest and no one was around to hear them, would giuliani be a republican candidate for president?

pps- here's a story i just found which deals with similar issues

Sphere: Related Content

youtube debates, keeping my attention rapt

i just got around to watching the cnn-youtube democratic presidential debates and was very impressed with everyone on stage. surprisingly so, actually. i really appreciated the firebrands, gravel and biden. those are two candidates who have more experience than almost anyone else in US politics, have their own thoughts, speak their mind honestly, and don't take any shit from anderson cooper. they actually seemed angry at some points during the debate, which was very welcome to my eyes and ears. biden even mentioned wellstone once, which was great, and his response on question 37 regarding gun control was perfect. i wish gravel got more airtime. he's charismatic, funny, and has such an impressive background spanning over three decades including filibustering to end the draft and also working to have the pentagon papers released- these facts i gathered from his website.

on the other side of the table, there were obama, clinton, and richardson, who often seemed like unemotional automatons, although i really liked that richardson stated that he would put his support behind the arts in public schools. obama and clinton answered the questions well, but their personalities seemed strained and plastic at times. and i don't like how much obama says "uh..." kucinich and edwards had good moments as well. i appreciate kucinich's "strength through peace" approach to diplomacy, and edwards is so positive and honest. his history of standing up for the underdog is very attractive, as is his haircut.

as much as i appreciate all the candidates' viewpoints and feel that several of them could be a good president, the similarities between candidates are so considerable that the issue comes down to who is electable for reasons which, unfortunately, have little to do with policy and more to do with personality, character, and who is "likable" to republicans, hilary coming in dead last in the last category. (she is so clever, experienced, and funny, though. it's too bad she's been cast as such a republican nemesis.) i think the issues are too grave and the consequences could be too dire for me not to evaluate a candidate to some extent based on my opinion of how electable they are.

i think an obama-edwards ticket would be superb, though i really disagree with edwards on his support for biofuels and resistance to nuclear power. how/where could we grow the crops used for biofuels? vertical farming? nice try, jeff.

here is the link to the debates in case you haven't seen them:

Sphere: Related Content

chad mccall

i really like chad mccall's work. he's a british artist who completed the 'evolution is not over yet' series of paintings in 1999. here's a samping:

these are from here, and there's another great example of his work here.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush-Saud rift

The Bush administration fucks everything up.

Sphere: Related Content

Gymkata

his name Kurt Thomas..."he must compete in an ancient savage ritual. they call it 'The Game.'
But nobody wins and nobody lives but now, until now!! when gymnastics and karate are fused...
the combustion becomes and EXPLOSION!!"

Sphere: Related Content

zach galifianakis + will oldham in kanye west music video

apparently, kanye west approached galifianakis to do an alternate version of his music video and this is the result. general greatness, and an excellent commentary of modern mainstream rap videos, many of which still seem to be based off of the "hypnotize" music video. click the image to watch.

Sphere: Related Content

DARPA's PAM

While proofing some pages from the book The Wisdom of Crowds I came across the author's analysis of PAM, a program about which I'd kind of forgotten. So here's a fun flashback to 2003:

The Policy Analysis Market (PAM), also known as FutureMAP was a proposed futures exchange developed by the United States' Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and based on an idea first proposed by Net Exchange[1], a San Diego research firm specializing in the development of online prediction markets.

PAM was to be a "a market in the future of the Middle East", and would have allowed trading of futures contracts based on possible political developments in several Middle Eastern countries. The theory behind such a market is that the monetary value of a futures contract on an event reflects the probability that that event will actually occur, since a market's actors rationally bid a contract either up or down based on reliable information. One of the models for PAM was a political futures market run by the University of Iowa, which has allegedly proven more accurate in predicting the outcomes of U.S. elections than either opinion polls or political pundits. PAM was also inspired by the work of George Mason University economist Robin Hanson.

At a July 28, 2003 press conference, Senators Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) claimed that PAM would allow trading in such events as coups d'état, assassinations, and terrorist attacks, due to such events appearing on interface pictures on the project website. They denounced the idea, with Wyden stating, "The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it's grotesque," while Dorgan called it "useless, offensive and unbelievably stupid". [2] Other critics offered similar outrage. Almost immediately afterwards (within less than a day) the Pentagon announced the cancellation of PAM, and by the end of the week John Poindexter, head of the DARPA unit responsible for developing it, had offered his resignation.

CNN reported the program would be relaunched by the private firm, Net Exchange, which helped create it, but that the newer version "will not include any securities based on forecasts of violent events such as assassinations or terror attacks". ^[1] On June 11, 2007, Popular Science launched a similar program, known as the Popsci Predictions Exchange.

There are now commercial policy analysis markets, such as InTrade, which offers futures on events such as the capture of Osama bin Laden, the U.S. Presidential Election, and the bombing of Iran.

The above from the Wikipedia entry. Well, the author, to my dismay, ended up defending PAM based on his correct but in this case misguided reasoning that a diverse predictions field would provide the best intelligence. . . . Misguided because the market predictions can easily become self-fulfilling when certain people's monies are on the table. . . . Which, I think, was probably the point to begin with.

Sphere: Related Content

norwegian man gored in leg during running of the bulls

so i wonder...how the hell they are gonna clean this wound?

Sphere: Related Content

save africa?

An interesting take on the Wests' obsession with 'Saving Africa' from itself.

from the Washington Post

Sphere: Related Content

prophetic 1952 cartoon strip

from Boing Boing: (click for larger picture)

EEAHH! A PIG!

Sphere: Related Content

Drinking Out of Cups

Sphere: Related Content

mixxx

i uploaded a collection of 11 dancy, sort of electro, rock songs here. it should only take a minute to download, but will keep all ten of your toes tapping for over 40 minutes.

Sphere: Related Content