Something glowing to think about

... if global warming (now restyled global 'climate change' to account for largely stagnant global temps over the last 10 years) is a disaster for both the human population and earth (a point I'm not willing to concede except for the purposes of this argument) why isn't nuclear energy the easy, obvious, most discussed answer?

Wind farms need vast stretches of open, relatively flat space. Don't know if you've noticed this, but there isn't a huge abundance of that just lying around twiddling its thumbs. The one area where the preceding is true is often met with horrific antipathy. That area is off shore.

Solar is kinda reliant on a sun that, especially on days like today, tends to be missing from time to time. Like at night. And winter in the Northeast. And Seattle. Oh, and its expensive.

Nuclear, however, is relatively inexpensive. Plants are already designed and the technology is already "mature" and thus viable. The space needed is significantly smaller than a wind or solar farm for similar output. And its pretty darn safe. The last incident I know of if TMI, and it resulted in (disputedly) zero population deaths and (again, disputedly) few or no injuries.

I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have drawbacks. Disposal of the waste presents big issues, certainly. But if we are truly on the edge of an ever deepening chasm called global warming/climate change, isn't it a small price to pay? If we are, I think its disingenuious and suspect NOT to discuss the one thing that could save us. I'm not saying we have to forgoe all advancements in solar and wind. I'm not saying solar and wind can't be the future.

But the reality is:

Burning coal accounts for 36 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, natural gas 20 percent, and oil (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and heating oil) 44 percent. Since 90 percent of the coal burned in the U.S. is used to produce electricity, replacing all coal-fired generating plants with zero-carbon electricity generation plants would just about cut emissions by 2 billion tons.

Currently, 1,400 coal-fired electricity generation plants supply about 45 percent of the country's electricity while 104 nuclear power plants produce roughly 20 percent. So to replace all coal plants with nuclear plants would mean building 250 new 1,000 megawatt nuclear plants over the next 10 years, or about 25 new plants per year. That could be done for about $1 trillion.

Look at the comparison: According to the Electric Power Research Institute and using standardized wind generation costs you would need 500,000 windmills costing $1.4 trillion or $4.5 trillion in solar panels to replace all the coal-fired plants in the country. Windmills would cost 40% more and we'd require a lot of them. Solar would just cost a lot.

We are either ignoring the obvious, easy answer to a looming "disaster," or something else is going on entirely in the climate change/global warming movement.

Disclosure: The FDA regulates apples & cigarettes. Also, before I'm smeared as a smog lover: I compost and consider every earth-friendly innovation I can.

On TJ, Deism, and writing

I'm going to handle these in reverse order. Why? Because its my blog and I can.

Writing on the blog has fallen off. But its fallen off across the board, i.e. - on everything. Neither is a good thing. I took August off to reward myself for my hard work, knowing that I had a piece or two or three yet to complete. I've now made two stabs at the first of those pieces without any kind of success. I need to really buckle down. I have two pieces I really need to get done, and probably 100 more. Plus, I'd like to start Book II at some point.

I've recently become enamored with the idea of, and would probably describe myself as, a deist. A follower of deism. Long story short: You believe in a god who set the world's natural laws in motion and has stayed out since then. Its very Jefferson Biblish. And Jefferson, and lots of other Founding Fathers, were or probably were, deists. Deism allows you to believe in all sorts of science and to be skeptical of all the holy "books" and miracles and supersitition. My take on it is that maybe god was there at the "big bang," maybe he made it go "bang." But he hasn't had a hand in it since, and he doesn't appear, nor make Mary appear, in potato chips. Jesus was a great moral leader, but not the son of God. Holy books are fine, human takes on religion, but they are just that, human works with all the accompanying frailty, fault and agendas that comes with it.

(Now, that wasn't so short, was it?)

I hate people who try to romanticise about the "good old days." I'll paraphrase Billy Joel ... "the good old days weren't always good. And tomorrow [doesn't have to be] as bad as it seems."

I have some conflicted feelings on Thomas Jefferson. He did some stuff that I really wish he hadn't, especially in light of his well-stated beliefs. But I really respect the hell out of the guy. By far my favorite founding father and the person (living or dead) I'd most like to invite to a dinner. The more I learn, the more I like.

I'm going hunting for a good TJ biography.

That's a pretty big thing, because I never, but never, read biographies.

I'm fascinated by this Moliclue

Guess of what the above picture is a photo*? (Hint: The hede is a hint that gives it away)

Its a picture of a single molecule of pentacene, according to the Daily Mail (via Volokh). Pentacene consists of 22 carbon atoms and 14 hydrogen atoms.

The five "rings" you can identify in this picture are five carbon atoms. The source says the hydrogen atoms around the carbon rings "can be seen;" I fail at that, unless its a reference to the dark circles above and below the rings.

Anyway, pretty neat. I wasn't aware that they could do anything like this. Of course, having said that, I will now find out that it happens all the time, probably since something like the 1800s.

*And yes, I did a single-armed hand stand-based summersault to avoid the dangling participle.

S-C-A-R-Y

From reason.com...

The British government plans to put 20,000 families in "sin bins," where they will be under 24-hour video surveillance. The cameras will make sure parents make their children go to bed on time, eat proper meals, and go to school. The government will also send out agents to check up on the families. Some 2,000 families are already in the program.

I don't know what else to add, except that thank goodness this isn't happening in the U.S.; yet.

Media - Double Standards

Going to see comedian Joe Rogan at a club in Philly tonight. This will be short so I can get work done.

First, a NY Times reporter was held hostage in Afghanistan, secretly, for 7 months. Here. The NY Times withheld the story in the interest of the reporter's safety. I wonder if the NY Times is so thoughtful when the hostage isn't a member of its family.

The Washington Post has had a feature called Mouthpiece Theater. I'll admit I didn't watch it, and I'm not sure what it was all about. But from reports I'd guess it was supposed to be edgy commentary. Which apparently worked fine until one segment suggested Hillary Clinton would be served Mad Bitch beer. That was apparently enough to get the entire thing yanked. Now, I hate people who cry First Amendment when referring to businesses or individuals. The good old First bars government from passing laws restricting speech and says nothing about business. But this is slightly asinine

Its noted that, first off, the Post, and papers in general, are in business to irritate, secondly, while the publisher blamed the poor state of internet watchdogs at the paper it has been online for 14 years and has been CUTTING copy editors and that it regularly includes and allows offending pieces. A sampling of those pieces ... Readers complained to Ombudsman Deborah Howell about this dig at the late Jerry Falwell by Berkeley Breathed and this "Mother Goose and Grimm" jab at Jews. When Tom Toles drew a hospital bed attended by a "Dr. Rumsfeld" to make a point about the state of the U.S. military, livid vets and the Pentagon brass gave Howell an earful.

The law of unintended consquences

This is a perfect example involving health care incentives established by law. Unintended; not necassarily unforeseen..

Still, it feels to me like the article is leaving a big, pink elephant of a solution unnamed. Maybe that is just selection bias on my part.

Ignore the pink elephant that may or may not be there. Even then the article ends on a very unsatisfactory note, in my mind. Read the article (or don't) and then (if you did) let me know if you found the ending as unsatisfying as I did.

Wake me up, when August ends

Its really just there for the heat & humidity. And one birthday of note.

Of course, if we just went ahead and banned August, that might help with the heat an humidity. The birthday could be moved. Its not like September is anything to sneeze at. And besides, its a pretty sparsely used month, in my mind. One major holiday. The unofficial end of summer. But other than September 11, and a handful of birthdays, what happens in September? You hardly ever run into someone with a September birthday. So its wide open.

And August? Its just a wreck. Some evidence:

• Hiroshima & Nagasaki occured in August
• Its when Anne Frank was arrested
• its when the first income tax was collected
• Elvis & Marilyn Monroe both died
• WWI - started in August

and the kicker:

• Publishers (apparently) don't release books in August *GASP*

Here's an article arguing for, well, not exactly banishing August, but making it more bareable. Its the third or so year they've run it, I've wanted to post it in the past, so here it is. Pretty funny stuff.