Skip to main content

The Future Is Now

By

smalley_fig05bThis made us laugh and we thought we'd share it with you. While reading through various commentary of the energy bill passed by the House today - a non-starter for us and apparently for everyone else too - we ran into this comment from the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States:

The current proposals [by the ever-growing bi-partisan Gang, now numbering 22] would raise taxes on domestic energy producers in order to subsidize futuristic sources of energy such as wind and solar.

Futuristic! We've grown accustomed to our fellow energy generators recognizing that it's the mix that makes the cake and thus not belittling complementary industries, but we can certainly understand IPAMS's pettishness - especially given that its members don't sit next to a coast line.

They really are getting nothing from the House's latest maneuvers in addition to being punished, through no fault of their own, for being on the bad side of a developing energy policy.

(Nuclear energy didn't get a shout-out in the bill, either, but it didn't get spanked like its petrol producing pals. No knowing for sure, of course, but we think the Senate and White House are unlikely to move anywhere with this legislation.)

Still - futuristic! At least they didn't say fictional.

Picture of Miss Bolles and Miss Thorpe of the Connecticut Trapshooters League. You wanna talk futuristic, you can talk to the trapshooting gun.

More about how women shooters were treated in turn of the last century hunting magazines here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have always thought that energy sources such as wind and solar are really ancient, ancient technology. Windmills trace their origins back to medieval times, and solar goes back to essentially the stone age (heating caves, etc.). The human race has spent millions of years developing to the point of being less dependent on the vagaries of natural phenomena, and a scheme that places great dependence on energy sources vulnerable to them would undo that aspect of progress.
September 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Norske-Division said…
Great comment, anonymous.

As far as these energy sources being "futuristic" I think that "fictional" would have been more appropriate!
September 22, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
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...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more