newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

Assumptions of good science 1 Monday, 15 March 2010 20:39 Glen Farkas Solar and Wind are "laudable solutions." The environmentalists have forgotten a few things. Because of the lack of energy density in these two modalities they will require 10 Trillion dollars and a land mass the size of Mass. to just meet our electrical needs which approximately are equal to our fuel needs. This is a lot of money and to date solar and wind account for less than .4% of our electrical needs. The energy density here is so low that incredible subsidy is required to maintain production. Further, the developing countries such as India are laughing at us for burning our food to make biofuels and trying to reinvent wind mills and solar panels which have little energy density. France discarded this in their evolution towards energy independence which has resulted in deriving 80% of their electrical power from nuclear sources. They began learning with the energy crisis of '73. They ultimately realized they didn't have large land masses, crops, oil, coal, and gas reserves to make electricity but they did have enough land to make nuclear reactors so that they now export (and make money) selling electricity. Further the "environmentalists" haven't realized how much damage to the ecosystem, plants, endangered birds, etc., will be caused by sequestering land masses the size of Massachusetts. I have seen reports that wind mills are place in horrible locations and cause death to hawks, owls, eagles and falcons. Is there a good place to put them where it is windy all the time and it won't cause death to our beloved birds? We remember how the late Sen. Kennedy didn't want the wind mills out where he sailed as they are an eye sore. Is there a good place to put them? Has anyone done the math on 10 Trillion dollars and why so much subsidy is required? Assumptions about reprocessing and storage. Are we sure that just like any other refuse that reprocessing, recycling and transmutation can't be of further value? We used to think that we needed land fills and then we figured out that we can just about recycle everything. There is more energy in nuclear waste to be used and what is left can be transmutated into useful industrial and medical products and resources. Are we so sure we need this huge storage facility called Yucca Mountain or are we just refusing to look at intelligent options. This process of assumptions has somehow asserted that we are the cause of climate change which has been doing fine on its own for billions of years. Are we assuming that we can control climate change. I have heard that we have trouble predicting the weather past next week. It is funny how global warming has conveniently shifted to climate change. 97% of the CO2 is not man made but somehow the 3% that is man made is responsible for everything. It used to be that CO2 was necessary for plants, crops, forests, and vegetation to grow. Now it is suddenly lumped in with smog and soot. Soon we will be assuming that Oxygen and Water are some how contributing to our demise. Smog and Soot are bad but this is different then CO2 which is part of the life cycle that helps create O2. Let's at least keep a few things straight or let's not assume anything. I have heard Dr. Chu indicate that reprocessing, storage and proliferation issues are resolvable. The same as been said by the National Academies. Our Navy seems to have done just fine with Nuclear energy and proudly boasts that there is so much energy available that a sub wouldn't need to refuel for 50 years. We have chosen to be in this mess of energy dependence which increases our expenses, pays our enemies, increases our trade deficit, budget deficit, and national debt. I am assuming that we are dysfunctional, nuts, greedy, self destructive, or have some really great strategy that is being kept very close to the vest. GCF, MD