I’ve always thought that the biggest issue with greens was not CO2 and AGW, but “progress in general”. This story seems to support that notion. Maybe they’ll get James Hansen to denounce it too. – Anthony
‘Emissions-free’ coal plant pilot fires up in Germany
BERLIN (AFP) – One of Europe’s biggest power companies inaugurates on Tuesday a pilot project using a technology that it is presenting as a huge potential breakthrough in the fight against climate change.
But green campaigners have denounced the project as a cosmetic operation that does not really address the problem of global warming.
At the site of the massive “Schwarze Pumpe” (“Black Pump”) power station in the old East Germany, Vattenfall wants to the new method to allow it continue burning coal — but with radically reduced emissions.
To do so, the Swedish firm is using Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS for short, which captures the greenhouse gases produced when fossil fuels are combusted.
This prevents the greenhouse gases escaping into the Earth’s atmosphere and contributing to global warming.
The captured gases are then sharply compressed until they become liquid and are injected deep underground, sealed away and therefore will not contribute to the increase in the Earth’s temperature, Vattenfall says.
There does seem to be a lot of tempests in teapots. They strain out knats and swallow camels.
Maybe their story will become a cautionary tale for those who look longingly back to earlier times.
Highly recommended reading: Otto Bettmann, The Good Old Days (They Were Terrible)
as I’ve never heard of a decent enough, workable plan to store or get rid of nuclear waste.
All the nuclear waste in the history of the world wouldn’t fill a good-sized auditorium.
Not to mention that much of it can be recycled.
It’s a non-problem. (Waste from other energy production is far more of a problem.)
Just read some customer reviews for the book you recommended. I got it coming to me. Thanks evanjones.
Mike
Evan,
What reason do you have for hope in the human race? History,
theology, the law of compound interest?
John D.,
I agree. If humans are naturally experts at anything it seems that it would be in the ability to go to extremes. Our planet shows much more balance than we who live on it. And yes we ought certainly to appreciate the conveniences living in a modernized society like the USA affords.
The main problem with this whole movement is found in the maxim that “the lies most difficult to distinguish are those which contain the most truth.” There are many laudable things about environmentalism practiced in moderation just as there are many laudable things about capitalism practiced in moderation. There is absolutely no reason, except for our current technological capacity in some cases, why the two cannot go together. The caveat in that is that it must be of free will and not government mandated. The problem there is that government mandates are the easiest (or laziest) way of getting people to do what you want if they don’t want to. Plus, in that way there can be punishments for not cooperating and rewards for cooperating, so there is that incentive too.
There is nothing even inherently wrong with a one-world government if it does not ignore the free will of the people it governs. The two-fold problem as I see it in the EU that is that they are clearly prepared to override the popular will when it suits their agenda, and that the interests of the globe at large do not go together suitably for that type of unified government to exist on our planet. They don’t even go together in the EU itself as is amply demonstrated on EUReferendum.com. For example:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2008/09/as-others-see-it.html
Again, this is because extremism is quick, easy, and lazy way get what one wants. The core of it is arrogance and impatience, qualities wholly demonstrable in the EU and the UN. They presume to have the best vision for bring the world into its fullest flower with peace and love and harmony everywhere. To bring us paradise on earth as it were. And they don’t see why they should wait for ponderous democratic processes (such as we have here) to bring about change (also slow). And so since we are both stupid and stubborn, any means necessary fits in order to bring about their perfect vision of paradise on earth. But such work ignores the essences of what it means to be human, free will among those.
Evil loves a hierarchy,
God needs no such thing.
It you want to bring on evil
bring on that one-world thing.
Stalin was by some accounts a coward yet look what he ruled over.
a rule of thumb:
A good idea does not have to be forced on people and a bad one shouldn’t be.
What reason do you have for hope in the human race? History,
theology, the law of compound interest?
My study is history. I apply simple Historical Method: Like any scientist studying an immensely complicated progression, I observe the trends.
I look at where man was, what he was doing, how he lived 5000 years ago. 2000 years ago. 1000 years ago. 500. 200. 100. 75. 50. And now, today.
How can anyone possibly do that and not be filled with a most exuberant optimism?
In the future we shall bestride this narrow world like a colossus!
(Compound interest is on our side, too.) #B^1
Just read some customer reviews for the book you recommended. I got it coming to me.
Let me know what you think.
Or be smashed by an errant comet? It is dangerous out in the universe. For a while some thought we did not need God but some dangers are beyond human ability at this time and forseeably. And then there is Yellowstone. The logical consequence of a cold uncaring universe is a cold uncaring universe.
I think God saves fools first in many cases. A form of heavenly triage.
Trends are trends
and should not be despised.
But I also prefer:
a fundamental reason why.
Or be smashed by an errant comet?
I’ll lay odds we’ll be able to deflect it before the problem comes up.
I’ll go with Heinlein (and I think even he was badly suckered into unwarranted pessimism in many ways–re. food and resources, for example). I think man in general, and modern man in particular, can rise to just about any occasion. And when he does take a licking, he dusts himself off and travels on.
Just to pick one thing, computer processing ability doubles every 18 months. Do you have any idea what that means? (Not even to mention biotech . . .) Trends. The trends. Consider the trends!
Trends are trends
and should not be despised.
But I also prefer:
a fundamental reason why.
Sometimes you just have to settle.
I think that any love is good lovin’
And so I took what I could get, mmm
Oooh, oooh, she looked at me with big brown eyes
And said
You ain’t seen nothin’ yet
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain’t seen nothin’ yet
I’ve taken the fool’s path to wisdom. What is a trend?
“Sometimes you just have to settle.” evan
Yep, but i will press on to rediscover what everyone else never forgot.
“and know it for the first time”
Life “then” as opposed to life “now”, for one.
(Dentistry. Toilet paper. Freedom. And like that.)
I’m more concerned with the “Big What” than the “Big Why”.
@Evan
Search ‘Family Wipes’. Seems that some want to do away with toilet paper and replace it with washable cloths that can be reused.
Of course, we would have to hand wash them.
Yep, but i will press on to rediscover what everyone else never forgot.
“and know it for the first time”
Yet don’t forget that it’s modernity and its accompanying affluence that affords you the ability to do so. Without it, we’d all be 18-hour-a-day dirt farmers. (Or worse.)
Dee:
Ugh! (Etc.)
On second thought, maybe I need to reconsider that “trend” thing . . .
No luddite here. “Better living through thermonuclear biochemistry” is my motto. Did I miss any toes?
I’m all in favor of that. (I just hope the moralistic nuts don’t get in the way of cell renewal. I want very much to violate “what God intended”. That’s the point.)
Evan,
Dentistry is a big one for me. Just in my lifetime (I’m 58), a trip to the dentist has gone from a thing of dread to dang near a social event…flirting with the girls and talking about fishing with my dentist. No anticipation at all except for the price tag on the crowns.
Often, I’ve told him how good he is. He gives technique some of the credit. But, also he says their equipment is so much better these days. One example: Needles. They’re laser sharpened now and used once. Painless!, when he uses his special technique. Way back when, they were autoclaved, got dull over time and would tear tissue when jammed in. Hurt like hell. That tearing of tissue is what caused most all the discomfort after the deadening would wear off, also. Gawd, I’m long-winded.
[Reply – I bet I can trade you wind for wind! ~ Evan]
Bobby Lane (19:53:29):
…There is nothing even inherently wrong with a one-world government if it does not ignore the free will of the people it governs. …
One-world government inherently ignores the free will of its diverse subjects. It is the ultimate smoothing algorithm, damping all that high frequency dissent into the straight trend line of government policy.
Anthony Watts wrote: I’ve always thought that the biggest issue with greens was not CO2 and AGW, but “progress in general”.
My brother, you’re not alone. See this article, which drew some fire over at Realclimate in last Friday’s Roundup (starting at about comment 60). Definitely worth a read.
johnnyb:Thing with nuclear though, is that nuclear can not be used to transport anything smaller than a ship. Even a train is too small to use nuclear directly
Just a nit on your excellent post, but these new uranium hydride nuclear batteries would be great for powering trains and ships without the hassle of a nuclear reactor. Roughly the size of a hot tub and just several tons in weight. Last ~5 years.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/04/updates-on-uranium-hydride-reactor-and.html
The German people are lacking in logic, Living in Germany and watching the German public get eaten alive used to give me nightmares but realizing that they were lacking in logic I close my eyes to the problem. G. Schroeder took €385,000 a year for life after arranging a German government loan to finance a Russian pipeline to transport gas to Germany, he also conveniently destroyed most of the energy laws not related to Russian energy, the Germen people ? they thanked him for securing ‘reliable’ energy for Germans future, for believing a man that has been married 5 times ( and about to be single again) and cost the country hundreds of billions of € it shows how stupid the German public really is.