This is aym's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following aym's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
aym
Recent Activity
Nice try but the levelized costs of nuclear energy are on the outer edges of affordability. The technology requires the implementation of various technological implementations to be considered "safe" and there is a limit to the amount of cost cutting and technological innovation to keep safety levels high while lowering costs. Alternative energy has much more technological slack to implement cost savings than nuclear. We don't fully take into account the costs of storage or other aspects of waste, not do we take into account the cost of plant remediation.
You ask whether or not how power or looks go into the same equation of buying a car.
Another sign of desperate idiocy from Ford. The Eglinton line was already costed out in Transit city. Only the ends were above ground. Now he wants to stifle the economy along Eglinton so that his own vision can be created on Shepard. It's a monument that should be called Ford's Folly. Sheppard line didn't have a great ROI to begin with. What a boondoggle.
Hopefully this adds to our knowledge and determination to do something. There is a cost to doing nothing. Nothing shouldn't be an option.
This is a typical response to restrict information and control media. Guess you beat the plan but you can silence it. Shame on Ford.
totally disgusted with the senate. First it gets stacked full of Conservatives by Harper, who to tells his followers that he wants a more representative body, but in reality he has created a huge ideological block. My scorn knows no bounds.
Toggle Commented Nov 17, 2010 on Senate reform meets climate change at Politics
Exactly how I feel. What the heck were people thinking of when they voted for Ford. There are many things that make a city work, Ford epitomized attributes in his career that don't.
Green technology has enabled money to be invested in California to help out Californians. The payback for Green tech is measured in years beyond what is considered good, yet the payback is consistent and decent, after which it is pure profit. The higher efficiencies which California has worked for has contributed to California's economy and saved it a lot of money. Good for California. Good for the educated Californians who know that technology needs support to reach it's full potential. Without invest now, longer term planning for the inevitable will not happen and California will miss out. Energy tech is going to be one of the biggest things.
1 reply
Nice article. It requires foresight in building as well. We are creating things in a half hazard way and then trying to link them up meaningfully. We need to create mixed use neighborhoods, with enough zoned business so that people can get local goods and services. And when we build these places, we need to make sure that some sort of plan exists to support them with alternative transportation to cars. Doing it the other way is proving to be expensive and time consuming.
Toggle Commented Oct 11, 2010 on Cars are not the answer at Your City, My City
I'm sure there will be an attitude that this is just another scare story. But it isn't. Science predicts to the best of our ability and understanding. Every day things get more refined. But all the unanswered parts are on how high and hot it's going to get, not the other way around. Time to grow up. Live within our means as a species. Make room for others to raise themselves. Make sure we can justify the sapiens part of our names and live wisely.
It's still amazes me that these guys go to sites unencumbered with real data, and take it wholesale and then try to redistribute it. Scary as heck.
Science by Moncton, Watts, & other amateurs who couldn't find their own backsides. See the same old, same old. Not a real paper from them. No scientific organization supports the ludicrous proposition of the deniers but watch their wave the science flag.
Where there's hot air, there's G. Where's the science? And if G thinks CO2 is innocuous maybe he should put a plastic bag over his head and sees what happens.
The ugly underside of conservative ideology rears its ugly head in the Ford campaign. No thanks. Even if it isn't Ford's view, which I find debatable, to surround oneself with people who holds such views is just another liability and a strike against his own judgement. I especially like his views on sensationalist journalism. The fifth estate has been under attack by the right since the time of Nixon and beyond.
Scientific and human societal needs will eventually have to be addressed. In other words, tough. AGW is real and some methodolog will have to used to address the situation. No choice means that something will be used if by stick or carrot. It's a joke to call it a wealth redistribution scheme like most denialist claims. You can put that word salad under any profit making enterprise, from the early modern period and the privatization of shared land to modern industrial enterprises. By using such soundbytes, you really show only a disdain for the subject. Same with the Gestapo bull.
What the publlic thinks it knows and what is factual science are very different things. And frankly if thats what you're trying to do, it's a disservice but then looking at your posts, here and the past, that's no surprise. It is one thing to be doubtfull. It's another to take an opposite/contrary view and just look for evidence. AGW is accepted and supported by every recognized scientific organzation in the world. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Meanwhile the deniers keep dredging up "evidence" that couldn't be used in grade school.
"the terrorists will win"??? What's that. The latest soundbyte to counteract anything that impedes drilling? Get real. By insisting on not changing our lifestyles we are just continuing the actions that have led to the developements of terrorism and global social/political tensions. The federal gov't can do very little right now except in a reactionary phase. Early action was delayed by BP insisting that it had it under control. Right. Look at the control.
Battery swapping has one distinct advantage. The battery is not owned by the vehicle owner. This may externalize the cost of the battery and allow a lower cost of ownership. So it may lower the price barrier to general ownership. It also allows centralized processing of car batteries in general. This would facilitate recycling and recovery. I'm not saying that this should be the model of usage but it does have it's advantages. In the case of taxis it maybe the only real way of electrifying a fleet of taxis on a continuous basis.
At least it wasn't in colder climates. Actually there are natural oil eating organisms around that area. I believe that variations were the first copywritten organsims made. Of course that doesn't abrogate the damage done to sake the ravenous thirst for oil our society seems to believe that any cost is worth it.
I wouldn't say that it was reliance on foreign oil that led to today's foreign policy. It was the desire to not create both domestic and foreign policies to effectively deal with limited oil and the wrath of voters. Eventually someone has to. Obviously there will be exploitation of resources. The point I was trying to make was that single mindedness of just atttacking the supply side of the problem hardly works. You get the tendency of ignoring very real problems.
@Chris, That's what peer review is about. To check the background and facts of papers. So called climategate was and is a hack job designed to appeal to people through sensationalist methodologies. On review, there has been shown to be no scientific faud although there was problems with FOI requests with known denialists, who use the tactics to interfere with people trying to do their work. Anyway, ocean acidification is being studied across many different places and none of it's good news.
Right. And the environmentalists stopped the ALberta tar sands from being developed. Developement of these types may not be feasible because it sometimes requires the use of chemicals pumped into the strata to get at the oil. If it gets out, then yes it may be dangerous, and yes it may be stopped. Should the point be oil at any cost. I should hope not. That's the same reasoning that created present day foreign policy.
There can be problems with CO2 leakage from old wells. Newer techniques of extracting more from old wells always has stories of leakages. And to make a real environmental benefit, one would have to create an infrastructure to store equal to our oil consumption.
In addendum, it should be added that an above 2 degree rise in the next century would vastly increase the chance that unforseen positive feedbacks will happen. When those happen, then the chaotic system that the climate will end up in a much different place. Humans have survived but civilizations in the past have fallen.
Actually the study is a fascinating piece of public policy implementation in light of the communal reticense of the stakeholders involved. If you like the green news, it's very simple, don't read and especially don't respond to it. No one is forcing you to read it. As the science gets more resolved, we will see what necessary steps will be needed. It is far more likely that some addition steps will be needed since people are far more likely to underestimate these situations in which they will have to pay then not.