Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
It's been a good few months for Carly Fiorina; the once-embattled former president and CEO of Hewlett-Packard is now an advisor and leading surrogate for the McCain presidential campaign. Fiorina has recently been mentioned as a possible running mate with Senator McCain. Today she appeared in the "B" segment on ABC's This Week. Here she is on McCain and nuclear energy,
Comments
The BWM asks, if a vandal ran through the streets breaking every window in town, would that create economic wealth because the employment of glaziers and glassmakers would increase? The inference here is that the metric for an energy option should be how many jobs it delivers and not the resultant price of energy for the economy.
BTW, here in Silicon Valley, people still spit on the ground when they mention her name. She is a very poor choice for McCain.
On the other hand, I have never known any politician to understand anything about economics, and sadly, most corporate executives fall into this category, also; hence Carly.
But at least Carly is openly pro-nuclear, though perhaps we could do without friends like that.
When she was canned, employees played clips of "Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead."
I can't imagine why anyone would want to tie themselves to someone so hated by 100,000 plus people.
Are a hundred thousand people smarter than one person?
Is one person smarter than a hundred thousand?
I expect that they are equally stupid.
After all, Californians wanted the current ban on new nuke generation. So now they are stuck with wind mills that don't work in the summer, and coal-fired electricity imports. That a hundred thousand in the land of fruits and nuts hate Carly is hardly indicative of malfeasance, as I pointed out before.
BTW, all men (and women) are equal in one thing: the height to which human stupidity can rise (or better yet, the depth to which it can descend). That Carly shows this individually and Californians show this collectively is hardly surprising.
Carly was not the choice of anyone but a slim majority of the Board of Directors of H-P. She has not, to my knowledge, stood for any elected government position.
Secondly, the people of California voted to reject a ban on new nuclear TWICE when it was on the ballot as an initiative. The ban was an act of the state legislature while controlled by Democratic Party during the Jerry Brown administration. Unfortunately, we citizens are responsible for our elected officials.
I will agree that it is better that the McCain organization have a spokeswoman with a pro-nuclear position than with an anti-nuclear position.
I suspect her real role is fund raiser from corporate types. Her association with the Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group and assorted venture capitalists should be fruitful.
Whereas IBM selling its computer division as Wallstreet wanted, it lost contact with many in the channel, and couldn't offer the full platform.
--aa2
It is therefore obvious that the "peepul" don't always know what is best for them.
Now Joseph did point, "...the people of California voted to reject a ban on new nuclear TWICE when it was on the ballot as an initiative. "
But the "peepul" keep on voting for anti-nuclear Democrats in the land of fruits and nuts. So the "peepul" reap what they have sown: summer brownouts and blackouts.
Maybe - just maybe - we need more individuals like Carly Fiorina who aren't afraid of what the "peepul" say or want, and who will do what is right and correct in spite of the wishes of the "peepul" to the contrary.
But then again, as Thomas Jefferson said, the "peepul" deserve the government they get, and perhaps they don't after all merit Carly Fiorina's leadership.
The "peepul" want success without labor, without pain; but they are more than contented to remain in the misery of complacency so long as bread and circuses from the public treasury are provided.
If people in Malaysia work for less money than people in the States, and thereby save the company money, then how is Carly NOT doing her job?