Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: On Listmail

Expand Messages
  • Ronn! Blankenship
    ... http://comics.com/ed_stein/2010-05-01/ _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    Message 1 of 42 , May 3, 2010
      At 04:07 PM Monday 5/3/2010, Dave Land wrote:
      >On May 3, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
      >>There was research on exactly that sort of strategy, a few decades
      >>ago. Then it went out of style and what research there was was
      >>starved of funding and allowed to die, and we went right back to the
      >>old habits. Wind/solar energy resources are still seen as hippie
      >>fringe science in the parts of the world where oil is still king,
      >>and oil production is still the vast majority of our energy
      > From twitter.com/timbray:
      >BREAKING: Large Air Spill at Wind Farm. No threats reported. Some
      >claim to enjoy the breeze (via @quikness)


    • Dan Minette
      ... From: brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:22 PM To: Killer Bs
      Message 42 of 42 , May 8, 2010
        -----Original Message-----
        From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
        Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
        Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:22 PM
        To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
        Subject: Re: On Listmail

        Concerning oil spills, Doug wrote.

        >Tax, conserve

        Both are reasonable ideas. If you recall, JDG had, almost a decade ago,
        suggested a gasoline tax to change buying habits. I had mentioned, around
        the same time, a $1.00 federal tax added every year....with appropriate
        rebates for low income folks, help with job training for truck drivers, etc.
        Of course, the best conservation possible is a massive downturn. CO2 output
        for 2009 was down to 1994 levels for the US. But, the latest data we have
        from China is 2006 data. Since then, their combined oil and coal
        consumption, and their cement production has indicated an increase in CO2
        parallel to that of their economic growth. Thus, the true numbers of
        production would indicate that China is now, roughly, producing 50% more CO2
        than the US. Baring a collapse of the Chinese economy (which is possible),
        in 3 years they will should double the CO2 output of the US.

        >find alternatives and leave the oil in the ground.
        >Here and elsewhere.

        If only we'd listened to Jimmy Carter.

        In any case, thanks for the info in your earlier post about possible
        causes; interesting stuff. One thing; you can speculate about this
        being a black swan, but there's no real way to confirm that.

        >Even if this kind of thing happens only a couple of times a century, that's
        >way too often.

        Why is something acute and highly visible, such as an oil slick, much worse
        than something chronic and invisible. For example, look at the biggest oil
        slick ever:


        The burn was massive, as the link said, soot was found in the Himalayas.
        The spill was overwhelming: >8 million barrels are listed hear. However, a
        New York Times article from a couple of years later indicated that the
        damage was acute: not long lasting.


        Contrast this, if you will, to the dead zone that has been in the Gulf for
        the last 20 years. This is a massive, chronic problem, probably associated
        at least somewhat with the fertilizer runoff from farms in the Mississippi
        drainage area. When you are discussing ending oil production, you are
        discussing a downturn in the world economy that would make the last two
        years look like a blip.

        I think where we mostly disagree is the concept that, with enough funding,
        the Captain Piccard system for engineering works (just say "make it so" and
        Geordi (sp) has it done by the end of the show). I'd argue, that Clay
        Christensen is correct on how innovations work. A quick overview of this
        idea is at


        As is often true with Wikipedia, this isn't perfect, but I think that the
        basic concept describes why alternative fuel sources have not penetrated the
        market, and what would be needed for them to do so.

        It's probable that the US and Europe will have lower fossil fuel use in a
        decade than today. It's also probable, and it would take a 10 year lack of
        growth for this to not happen, that countries such as China and India will
        greatly increase their use of fossil fuels. Prices patterns indicate that
        oil production will not expand greatly. Natural gas will, and should, in
        the US, but most of the world will use a lot more coal...in plants with
        minimal pollution control equipment.

        The only way the US has to influence this is to come up with a disruptive
        innovation in energy. Anything else is as real as the run up in housing
        prices before the bubble burst.

        Dan M.

        BTW, Clay and Gautam are friends. They got to know each other when Gautam
        used this concept to explain why the British didn't use an effective
        countermeasure for submarine warfare on merchant ships in WWI that they had
        already been using to protect battleships until the end of the war.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.