Global warming-ists got some 'splaining to do...

[Okla-homey]

Last month was cooler than the 20th century average April temp, and the 29th coolest April since we started keeping records in 1894.


UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
April 2008

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2.39 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.04 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 54th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.01 inches per decade.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

[SoonerInKCMO]

Yeah, global warming means that every single year and month will be a little warmer than every year and month in the past. :rolleyes:

[Civicus_Sooner]

Funny how with all the chatter about the shrinking Arctic, they never mention that the Antarctic is growing even faster than ever.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah, global warming means that every single year and month will be a little warmer than every year and month in the past. :rolleyes:


No, of course it doesn't, but it's a data point that supports the theory that maybe its not as bad as many would have us believe.

[King Crimson]

take this for what it's worth (many of you already have a built-in reason to dismiss the work of scientists who as members of the "intellectual elite" apparently put their liberal agenda ahead of being scientists AND it's in Boulder freaking Colorado), i have some friends who work at CU's CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Environmental Sciences) and their standard line is it's actually worse than people think in some ways but not altogether doom-saying. there's some evidence based on NASA supercomputer modeling (done at CIRES) that the ozone hole is and will continue to return to levels circa 1900 or so around the end of the 21st century.....IF ozone depleting gasses are curtailed between now and then. it's the last 20-30 years that have produce the spike in ozone depletion.

this what they say over beers. and then we all sing the International, praise Comrade Obama, and laugh about how they are just making stuff up to whizz off conservatives. :D

[Okla-homey]

take this for what it's worth (many of you already have a built-in reason to dismiss the work of scientists who as members of the "intellectual elite" apparently put their liberal agenda ahead of being scientists AND it's in Boulder freaking Colorado), i have some friends who work at CU's CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Environmental Sciences) and their standard line is it's actually worse than people think in some ways but not altogether doom-saying. there's some evidence based on NASA supercomputer modeling (done at CIRES) that the ozone hole is and will continue to return to levels circa 1900 or so around the end of the 21st century.....IF ozone depleting gasses are curtailed between now and then. it's the last 20-30 years that have produce the spike in ozone depletion.

this what they say over beers. and then we all sing the International, praise Comrade Obama, and laugh about how they are just making stuff up to whizz off conservatives. :D

At these beer-hall putsches, ;) do your comrades perchance offer any theories on how we can get India and China to curtail their emissions? Because I'm thinking if they do nothing, and increase their burning of fossil fuels at a logarithmic rate, any US curtailment will be the equivalent of bailing out a leaky boat with a teaspoon.

[tommieharris91]

And despite all the things India and China do to grow, the US is still the largest producer of pollution in the world.

That said, I'm not really a subscriber to the global warming thing either.

[VeeJay]

Gore said the cyclone that wiped out the country formally known as Burma may be directly attributed to global warming.

You SUV drivers make me nauseous.

[Okla-homey]

Gore said the cyclone that wiped out the country formally known as Burma may be directly attributed to global warming.



It may also be the result of the fact the governing junta in Burma are a bunch of superstitious pinheads who don't cotton to no new-fangled weather forecasting.

[ric311]

And despite all the things India and China do to grow, the US is still the largest producer of pollution in the world.

That said, I'm not really a subscriber to the global warming thing either.

I do not believe this is true. I remember hearing a report recently that said that the US has now officially been passed by China as #1 polluter in the world. With Russia, not India, closing in at #3.

[King Crimson]

At these beer-hall putsches, ;) do your comrades perchance offer any theories on how we can get India and China to curtail their emissions? Because I'm thinking if they do nothing, and increase their burning of fossil fuels at a logarithmic rate, any US curtailment will be the equivalent of bailing out a leaky boat with a teaspoon.

to be honest, these guys don't think the problem from the perspective of competing nationalisms or economic strategy in terms of geo-political "positioning"...they are science/computer nerds. They don't see the problem that way professionally. it's not their job. additionally, these beer discussions are 99% about music and what knuckleheads CU undergrads are.

thinking through the frame of the global political economy, your point is correct. from what i understand which is not a lot about the Kyoto Protocol and history thereof, that India and China were classified as "developing countries" in the past and were not subject to the same protocol specs as "industrialized nations" in the past and now "justify" their astronomical increase in emissions based on per capita population arguments and China has a kind of weak-a$$ claim (I think) that clean burning fuels are unavailable to them.

something like that.

edit: sorry Ric, heh.

[ric311]

these beer discussions are 99% about music and what knuckleheads CU undergrads are.


The alumni, of course, are geniuses.

[Okla-homey]

thinking through the frame of the global political economy, your point is correct. from what i understand which is not a lot about the Kyoto Protocol and history thereof, that India and China were classified as "developing countries" in the past and were not subject to the same protocol specs as "industrialized nations" in the past and now "justify" their astronomical increase in emissions based on per capita population arguments and China has a kind of weak-a$$ claim (I think) that they clean burning fuels are unavailable to them.

something like that.

My understanding is China's electrical needs are met almost entirely from coal-burning plants. Moreover, they have that nasty soft lignite and sub-bituminous coal that burns especially dirty. I confess, I've never been to China, but I'm informed the urbanized areas have a stench, pallor and haze that rivals 19th c. London.

[jkjsooner]

[QUOTE=Okla-homey;2292075]At these beer-hall putsches, ;) do your comrades perchance offer any theories on how we can get India and China to curtail their emissions? Because I'm thinking if they do nothing, and increase their burning of fossil fuels at a logarithmic rate, any US curtailment will be the equivalent of bailing out a leaky boat with a teaspoon.[/QUOTE

I'm assuming you meant exponential rate, right? Logarithmic rate sounds good to me.

[King Crimson]

My understanding is China's electrical needs are met almost entirely from coal-burning plants. Moreover, they have that nasty soft lignite and sub-bituminous coal that burns especially dirty. I confess, I've never been to China, but I'm informed the urbanized areas have a stench, pallor and haze that rivals 19th c. London.

that's true I'm sure. I just remember seeing their claim to whatever the criteria was used by China in the "Availability" claim was somewhat called into question by a set of statistics about use, what they actually used versus what they said they used....in an on-line article i read maybe in the Economist or Slate or wherever, I don't remember. it was an actual legit publication, it wasn't the yahoo home page.

[Okla-homey]

BTW, I think there are two things we could do PDQ to help here in the US.

1) Go whole hawg on building of nuke power plants. Nuke is the safest, cleanest and most efficient way to make electricity ever devised by man. The progressive Europeans have certainly figured that out and the French alone have been starting up a new reactor every year for a decade.

2) Mandate MPG floors for new passenger vehicles immediately.

[VeeJay]

BTW, I think there are two things we could do PDQ to help here in the US.

1) Go whole hawg on building of nuke power plants. Nuke is the safest, cleanest and most efficient way to make electricity ever devised by man. The progressive Europeans have certainly figured that out and the French alone have been starting up a new reactor every year for a decade.


I agree on the nuke issue, but we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of the spent fuel rods. Leaving them soaking in water for 500,000 years I'm not sure is gonna work.

[Big Red Ron]

Global warming is a fact. It ebbs an flows through eons of time. There will be another ice age, right now we're in a warming cycle.

The cause is really whats up for debate.

PS - Dem's will not allow Nuke energy.

[Okla-homey]

I agree on the nuke issue, but we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of the spent fuel rods. Leaving them soaking in water for 500,000 years I'm not sure is gonna work.

I am quite sure we will eventually figure out something acceptable for the disposal of spent fuelrods. In the meantime, we continue to gouge our landscape for coal and spew coal smoke into the atmosphere.

[Okla-homey]

->

[Okla-homey]

PS - Dem's will not allow Nuke energy.

and that's why its so frustrating to moderates like me.

It's as they have a roof leak and b1tch and moan about it constantly, but refuse to allow anyone to mess up the rose bushes in climbing on the roof to fix it.

I say, get onboard the Nuke train, or STFU already about global warming.

[King Crimson]

i think there will be a lot more receptivity to nuclear in the future once the baby boomer as adult era image of nuclear "coming of age" as 3 mile island/Chernobyl becomes less dominant. not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing....just a guess.

for most people of that generation (who currently control the political, financial, and somewhat ideological apparatus of the nation) and my own (X) that was the "entry into consciousness" of nuclear. the image of the reactor shape as one of potential species ending holocaust.

[Ash]

No, of course it doesn't, but it's a data point that supports the theory that maybe its not as bad as many would have us believe.

Not necessarily, one annual blip doesn't even make for a short-term climatic cycle, much less a long term pattern. You also have to take into consideration where you are on the earth and how that affects weather patterns.

For example, 12,000 years ago after a relatively short period of warming marked by glacial retreat and shifts in biota, something (most likely a shutdown of the thermohaline cycle in the Atlantic Ocean) precipitated a return to much cooler global temperatures and a renewed growth cycle of glaciers in North America in a matter of decades. That's relatively rapid change for global climate conditions.

Now, if you were up near the Great Lakes region or the Northeastern United States, or Greenland, you felt the full brunt of this (over one or two generations) and were subject to some pretty severe conditions on and off.

If you were in the interior US, the subsequent changes were probably so gradual that you didn't really notice a difference at all. You see, it's doubtful that our everyday perspective can capture the relevant patterns since these usually reveal themselves over long periods of time.

Very short catastrophic events, such as droughts, are of course noticeable, but those are very short-term climatic events. They do not represent climate change. In the mid-Holocene in southern interior North America, temperatures rose on average and effective moisture declined for a period of about 1500-2000 years (called the Altithermal). Now that's some climate change. Makes the Dust Bowl look like nothing. Sand dune formations across the Plains are most likely date to this event and there is evidence of people digging for water in creeks and springs as the water dried up at this time. The Southern High Plains was hit particularly hard.

What's really funny about bringing up the Younger Dryas (the 12,000 year old event I described above), is that it signals the end of the Ice Age.

Yet, the folks who were in southern interior North America most likely lived through more severe winters (on average) after the Ice Age was over. While temperatures were cooler overall (all seasons, averaged over 100s of years), the data we have indicates that there was less pronounced seasonality during the last Ice Age.

[Okla-homey]

i think there will be a lot more receptivity to nuclear in the future once the baby boomer as adult era image of nuclear "coming of age" as 3 mile island/Chernobyl becomes less dominant. not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing....just a guess.

for most people of that generation (who currently control the political, financial, and somewhat ideological apparatus of the nation) and my own (X) that was the "entry into consciousness" of nuclear. the image of the reactor shape as one of potential species ending holocaust.

I agree, superstitions die hard.

Heck, I straddled nuclear weapons for two decades and I am healthy as a horse. My Navy comrades work, eat and sleep within a few yards of a functioning reactor with no ill effect.

That Chernobyl dealio was nasty, but those guys running it were forced to operate an aging system with minimal safeguards on a shoe-string budget from Moscow.

TMI was here, but it was stopped short of total meltdown and the damage was contained. Further, there were no immediate deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community which can be attributed to the accident to date. And that was almost thirty years ago.

Bottomline on TMI: although 25,000 people lived within five miles of the site at the time of the accident, no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred. And its not for lack of trying. The volume of litigation it spawned was staggering. If you can't get a jury to believe you were hurt, believe me, you weren't.

[85Sooner]

I am going to help Global warming to day by getting in my Big SUV and going to the Mega Market to get some previously vivacious beef and use the heat from burning carbon products to render this into righteous delicious sustanence.

[r5TPsooner]

Al Gore lied to us... I'm shocked!

Now Pardon me while I jump into my gas guzzling V8 engine truck, burn a big fat cigar and blow the smoke into the free air. Plus, I'll crank my A/C up and forget to water my flowers and trees this weekend while disposing of my plastic in my trash can instead of the blue totes that the city gives us.

There, I did my part to **** him off.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Al Gore lied to us... I'm shocked!

Now Pardon me while I jump into my gas guzzling V8 engine truck, burn a big fat cigar and blow the smoke into the free air. Plus, I'll crank my A/C up and forget to water my flowers and trees this weekend while disposing of my plastic in my trash can instead of the blue totes that the city gives us.

There, I did my part to **** him off.Algore, does more damage with his private jet and limos in a week thaan you could in a year. ;)

[Okla-homey]

Algore, does more damage with his private jet and limos in a week thaan you could in a year. ;)


he's a big feller who farts a lot too. Just sayin'

[KC//CRIMSON]

BTW, I think there are two things we could do PDQ to help here in the US.

1) Go whole hawg on building of nuke power plants. Nuke is the safest, cleanest and most efficient way to make electricity ever devised by man. The progressive Europeans have certainly figured that out and the French alone have been starting up a new reactor every year for a decade.


You could single-handedly start up Black Fox again.;)

[yermom]

you don't trust the government on education or health care, but you want them running a bunch of nuclear reactors and taking care of the waste?

[Civicus_Sooner]

you don't trust the government on education or health care, but you want them running a bunch of nuclear reactors and taking care of the waste?Hell no! It's a private company that would be allowed to build them by the dumbass government types.

[sooner2b09]

"Its real, I'm super serial!"

-Al Gore

[mdklatt]

Last month was cooler than the 20th century average April temp, and the 29th coolest April since we started keeping records in 1894.

You realize, of course, that anything with the word GLOBAL in it encompasses more than the US?


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080418112341.htm


The average global land temperature last month [March] was the warmest on record and ocean surface temperatures were the 13th warmest. Combining the land and the ocean temperatures, the overall global temperature ranked the second warmest for the month of March. Global temperature averages have been recorded since 1880.

Well I'll be damned.

[mdklatt]

to be honest, these guys don't think the problem from the perspective of competing nationalisms or economic strategy in terms of geo-political "positioning"...they are science/computer nerds. They don't see the problem that way professionally.

Somebody gets it.

The only "controversy" about AGW comes from politicians and paid shills for the fossil fuel industry.

[mdklatt]

The cause is really whats up for debate.


Not really, unless somebody discovers magical pixie dust that is causing all the known greenhouse gasses we're adding to the atmosphere to stop acting like greenhouse gasses. No natural cycle can explain the timing and degree of warming we've experience since the start of the Industrial Age.

[mdklatt]

Al Gore lied to us... I'm shocked!


OMFG, now he's got a TIME MACHINE (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf)!

:rolleyes:

[Civicus_Sooner]

Not really, unless somebody discovers magical pixie dust that is causing all the known greenhouse gasses we're adding to the atmosphere to stop acting like greenhouse gasses. No natural cycle can explain the timing and degree of warming we've experience since the start of the Industrial Age.
I'm guessing you never took a geology class. Ever heard of a volcano? Care to take a guess at how much green house gas those emit? Especially the big ones thoughout our geological history.

[Vaevictis]

I'm guessing you never took a geology class. Ever heard of a volcano? Care to take a guess at how much green house gas those emit? Especially the big ones thoughout our geological history.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html


Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

[yermom]

those studies are obviously biased

they were done by scientists, after all

[mdklatt]

I'm guessing you never took a geology class. Ever heard of a volcano?

As a matter of fact I did. Ever take a meterology class or twenty like the all the people who say this is real?

Do you know what the volcanic output of CO2 is compared to fossil fuel usage? CO2 concentrations are increasing...are volcanic eruptions increasing? Why does spectroscopic analysis indicate that fossil fuel CO2 is increasing much faster than natural CO2?


http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html


Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

...
[T]he global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

Got any other guesses, Mr. Geology 1014?

[Civicus_Sooner]

So, we went from "greenhouse gas" to CO2. I guess changing the topic would be good for you.

[Civicus_Sooner]

Here's a clue, methane and nitrous oxide are also in volcanos.

[mdklatt]

So, we went from "greenhouse gas" to CO2. I guess changing the topic would be good for you.

Which greenhouse gasses are you talking about? Is their trend up or down due to volcanic eruptions over the last 150 years or so? What is their greenhouse efficacy compared to CO2? What about volcanic aerosols which actually have a cooling effect?

[mdklatt]

Here's a clue, methane and nitrous oxide are also in volcanos.

Has there been more volcanic release of methane and nitrous oxide in the past 150 years than before?

[Civicus_Sooner]

Has there been more volcanic release of methane and nitrous oxide in the past 150 years than before?Less, I'm not arguing against global warming. I'm saying that we've seen higher levels of some of these gasses in our billion or so history. Too be honest, I'm predicting another ice age but only after the lastes warming trend, which, of course our planet has been through before.

[mdklatt]

Less, I'm not arguing against global warming. I'm saying that we've seen higher levels of some of these gasses in our billion or so history.

Was human civilization around then?



Too be honest, I'm predicting another ice age but only after the lastes warming trend, which, of course our planet has been through before.

What's causing this warming trend?

[Civicus_Sooner]

Like I said, we're in a warming trend. Similar to ones we've had in the past. We have less volcanic activity but greater human activity. I'm confident it'll work out.

I'm like Trent Reznor, I don't give a **** about the temp in guatimala. I'm sure that someone's gonna figure it out.

[Jerk]

What's causing this warming trend?


The Sun?

[Vaevictis]

Here's a clue, methane and nitrous oxide are also in volcanos.

http://www.gcrio.org/USGCRP/forum/part1forum.html

Methane: Up 100% since pre-Industrial levels
Nitrous Oxide: Up 18% since pre-Industrial levels

Carbon Dioxide: Up 30% since pre-Industrial levels, the concentration of which in the atmosphere dwarfs BOTH methane and nitrous oxide by three orders of magnitude.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than the other two gases combined by three orders of magnitude. (Source: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html)

You still need a hell of a lot more greenhouse gas from volcanos to support your initial claim; these last two only added about 0.1% to your total.

[Okla-homey]

so, whether GW is happening or not, may we please go nuke for electricity? pretty please.

and as far as all the coal we save goes...look, the Nazi's figured out how to refine gasoline from coal sixty years ago. Seems to me it would make more sense to make gasoline from our abundant coal reserves (now earmarked for electricity) instead of burning food grains per this ethanol fraud.

[tommieharris91]

so, whether GW is happening or not, may we please go nuke for electricity? pretty please.

and as far as all the coal we save goes...look, the Nazi's figured out how to refine gasoline from coal sixty years ago. Seems to me it would make more sense to make gasoline from our abundant coal reserves (now earmarked for electricity) instead of burning food grains per this ethanol fraud.

Actually, ethanol from sugarcane can work because it is much easier to extract the stuff that is needed to create ethanol from sugar than from corn. I've heard that 20% of the sugarcane can be turned into ethanol, while maybe 1% of the kernel of corn can be turned into ethanol.

[Vaevictis]

so, whether GW is happening or not, may we please go nuke for electricity? pretty please.

I have no problems with it in theory. The practical issues of actually building the plants might make things rough.

(eg, there's only one company in the world that can actually build one of the critical components, and it can only do around 10 a year)

[Okla-homey]

I have no problems with it in theory. The practical issues of actually building the plants might make things rough.

(eg, there's only one company in the world that can actually build one of the critical components, and it can only do around 10 a year)

If it became a "national priority," I'm quite sure any such difficulty could be overcome.

[yermom]

i'd rather see more fusion research...

[Okla-homey]

i'd rather see more fusion research...

fine. but I say lets use existing technology we flippin' invented in the first place to make our electricity cleanly and safely.

[Vaevictis]

If it became a "national priority," I'm quite sure any such difficulty could be overcome.

Well, long term, sure. I agree.

I just don't see it being a national priority of that magnitude, even if the political situation changes such that people try to block the plants from being built.

At least, not until energy gets way more expensive than it already is.

[Ash]

Less, I'm not arguing against global warming. I'm saying that we've seen higher levels of some of these gasses in our billion or so history. Too be honest, I'm predicting another ice age but only after the lastes warming trend, which, of course our planet has been through before.

WE don't have a billion year history. WE and our ancestors arose under conditions very different from a billion years ago. WE have very much to do with the broad scale changes of the Pliocene-Pleistocene transition and have really only boomed as a species in the Holocene.

This reminds me of a chart one of my profs showed us one time of average temp fluctuations between glacials and inter-glacials. He noted the extreme cold periods and asked what was important about the fact that none of the warm periods showed similar spikes.


:gary:

[yermom]

fine. but I say lets use existing technology we flippin' invented in the first place to make our electricity cleanly and safely.

i wouldn't really want one anywhere near me... maybe i watched Homer on TV for too many years

[Okla-homey]

Well, long term, sure. I agree.

I just don't see it being a national priority of that magnitude, even if the political situation changes such that people try to block the plants from being built.

At least, not until energy gets way more expensive than it already is.

All it would take would be sufficient national resolve to enact a federal statute (under the Commerce Clause) expressly denying injunctive relief to those NIMBY types, thus denying them standing to sue.

Sure, there would still be some lawsuits in the beginning, but armed with that statute I propose, the cases would be quickly dismissed on motion by the gubmint citing it.

Heck, they could call it the "Clean Air and Electricity Act of 2008."

I find it extremely hypocritical that greenies don't like nuke when its the cleanest way to make Redy Kilowatt dance down the lines into their bamboo-floored, energy-efficient, vegan homes.

[Okla-homey]

i wouldn't really want one anywhere near me... maybe i watched Homer on TV for too many years

Like I said, nuke suffers from pop culture's treatment of it.

[Ash]

All it would take would be sufficient national resolve to enact a federal statute (under the Commerce Clause) expressly denying injunctive relief to those NIMBY types, thus denying them standing to sue.

Sure, there would still be some lawsuits in the beginning, but armed with that statute I propose, the cases would be quickly dismissed on motion by the gubmint citing it.

Heck, they could call it the "Clean Air and Electricity Act of 2008."

I find it extremely hypocritical that greenies don't like nuke when its the cleanest way to make Redy Killowatt dance down the lines into their bamboo-floored, energy-efficient, vegan homes.

Is radioactive waste a byproduct of nuke plants?

[Okla-homey]

Is radioactive waste a byproduct of nuke plants?

only spent fuel rods. And we have lots of big square western states with millions of uninhabitated acres to store them in until we figure out how to recycle them.

[Vaevictis]

All it would take would be sufficient national resolve to enact a federal statute (under the Commerce Clause) expressly denying injunctive relief to those NIMBY types, thus denying them standing to sue.

Sure, there would still be some lawsuits in the beginning, but armed with that statute I propose, the cases would be quickly dismissed on motion by the gubmint citing it.

That still wouldn't solve the supply issue, though.

The problem is that there's a special component that requires a special steel forging technique and an absolutely massive infrastructure to support. The problem is that there's only one company in the world with the infrastructure (this is solvable just by throwing dollars at the problem), and that this particular company in is the only one in the world that actually has the know-how to pull it off (this is somewhat more difficult to solve).

(Interesting fact: This company is Japanese, and the way they got the expertise was in WWII building those crazy-big Yamato class battleships.)

[yermom]

Like I said, nuke suffers from pop culture's treatment of it.

with my distrust of Monty Burns and his ilk, i don't really want some for-profit corporation running something with that much downside

[BigRedJed]

More energy efficient cars, nuclear energy, etc., etc... ...all great ideas, but lifestyle also has to enter the conversation. NOBODY -- and I don't just mean on this board -- NOBODY talks about actually reducing the average commute as part of the solution. Not in government, not in the media, not in public discourse, NOWHERE. The closest anyone gets is talking about mass transit, which of course can be a part of the change, but by far isn't the end-all, be-all.

We as a culture have to start thinking out of the box. Why is it that Europeans (who pay FAR more for gas than we do) don't seem to be as affected by this crisis? Well, because their cities are built differently (mostly because their growth happened prior to the automobile making getting from A to B such a snap.

We have allowed the car to dictate the terms of our lifestyles, and a long-term approach has to include cutting a large chunk off of the average commute. For both economic AND ecological reasons. Mostly economic, IMO. And our fuel consumption demands have a direct impact on our national security. By extension, we have to pay much more as taxpayers to ensure the pipeline of oil from the middle east and elsewhere doesn't dry up.

It used to be that we were paying to ensure cheap oil, but of course that is becoming a thing of the past. I still maintain that if we directly paid the actual cost of getting that gallon of gas to your fueling station when we purchased it (including paying for aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf and other military efforts related to keeping the oil teat functioning), we would all be riding busses, or riding bicycles a few blocks to work, but also paying many, many thousands less in income taxes.

So how do we fix this, you may ask? Well, I'm glad you asked. We need to remake our cities, creating appealing, walkable, safe, inner cities with good schools, housing and services. The challenge is, this is mostly done on the local level. Of course, that is mostly good, because nobody knows a city better than the people who live there. And anyway, we don't really want the federal government screwing directly with us more than is absolutely necessary, do we?

But the federal government could be a really good influence on cities if it ever chose to be, helping cities identify and eliminate barriers to infill development and smart growth, whether they be related to lending (typically much harder to get in urban areas, even for upscale development), land acquisition (maybe the most difficult part of infill), or onerous requirements on developers who are working to redevlop "brownfield" areas.

The fact of the matter is, if you are a developer you are almost crazy to jump through all of the federal, state, local, lending and site acquisition hoops when you can instead buy a field from Farmer Brown, get a few simple permits, and build something that is all but guaranteed to sell. In most cities it is far cheaper (permits prices are generally not weighted to discourage suburban growth, despite the fact that new developments on the edge of a community automatically increase the tax burden for everyone else in said community). Unchecked suburban sprawl is unsustainable growth, and is one of the biggest if not the biggest factor in our current fuel crisis, and (if you believe it) eco crisis.

[Frozen Sooner]

There is federal legislation that encourages lenders to lend in inner cities. The Community Reinvestment Act.

[BigRedJed]

Plus, if you use Homey's nuclear power plants and we switch to electric cars (much easier to do if you don't have long commutes), you can cut oil right out of the equation.

[BigRedJed]

Man, I sound like a nut. Or Ed Begley Jr.

[Ash]

only spent fuel rods. And we have lots of big square western states with millions of uninhabitated acres to store them in until we figure out how to recycle them.

Yeah, right, if only it were that simple and there really were millions of completely untouched acres where nuclear waste wouldn't have any kind of negative impact.

[BigRedJed]

There is federal legislation that encourages lenders to lend in inner cities. The Community Reinvestment Act.
Yep. I'm aware of it. A nice start.

[Frozen Sooner]

Oh, yeah, and count me as one Democrat who's solidly behind nuclear power.

Homey, I don't know that I can get behind your idea of legislative preemption of injunctive relief. Building a large power plant of any sort near someone's property is going to lower property values in a big way. I can't see justifying that kind of taking without some sort of relief at law.

One legislative change that might be good would be the removal of absolute liability for transportation of nuclear waste. This would certainly lower costs and make insurance a hell of a lot easier to buy.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yep. I'm aware of it. A nice start.

OK. Just making sure. It's also illegal for lenders to "redline" certain zip codes without a valid business reason (i.e. we're allowed to say that we won't make collateralized loans off the Alaska Road System.)

Banks whine all the time about Credit Unions not being subject to the CRA. Of course, our very nature is community reinvestment...

[BigRedJed]

Sustainable growth doesn't have to be downtown or inner city, BTW. It can just mean a nice-density, mixed use development where people can live, shop, work and be entertained within walking distance, or at least a short hop.

It can also include suburban and exurban "nodes" that are stops on transit rail or other public conveyance. Of course, it has pretty much been proven that the middle class will ride trains but not the bus, so good sustainable growth that includes public transit will typically have a bias towards rail.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm also on board with reversing suburban flight and making our cities livable. I would say "again" but I don't know that our cities were ever a great place to live. Jed, have you looked at some of Anchorage's Winter City Initiative stuff? I think you'd be interested.

[BigRedJed]

OK. Just making sure. It's also illegal for lenders to "redline" certain zip codes without a valid business reason (i.e. we're allowed to say that we won't make collateralized loans off the Alaska Road System.)

Banks whine all the time about Credit Unions not being subject to the CRA. Of course, our very nature is community reinvestment...
Yeah, but you and I both know that redlining still happens often, but is just a bit more craftily couched. Not that it happens at your place, but it happens in practice.

[Frozen Sooner]

Crap, I can't redline. My branch is smack in the middle of the area of town we would redline if we were so inclined-I'd never make another loan. :D

[BigRedJed]

I'm also on board with reversing suburban flight and making our cities livable. I would say "again" but I don't know that our cities were ever a great place to live. Jed, have you looked at some of Anchorage's Winter City Initiative stuff? I think you'd be interested.
I haven't seen it. Do you have a link? I always like seeing what other cities are doing. That's one of the flaws I think we have in OKC at times. With the way MAPS created huge change all at once, leaders here often seem to think we're the only ones doing it, when in reality cities all over the country are rebuilding their inner cities.

The only thing we did that was truly different from everyone else was the the funding method. Dedicated sales tax, no bonds, no debt, disparate projects that appeal to many different groups, but all achieving the same goal of reinventing the downtown area and passed on an all-or-nothing initiative. Admittedly innovative, but sometimes we get caught up in our own PR and forget that there are other models around the country that should be instructive.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'll see if I can't find something online. I may even have the name wrong.

Anchorage has a lot of the challenges OKC does from a sheer physical size perspective-it's a VERY spread-out city. The mayor has been pushing some plans through zoning and tax incentives to build city centers-self-contained parts of the city with local schools, shopping, etc-so that people don't have to rely on their vehicles quite so much. Mass transit is darn near impossible-the sheer size of the Municipality is staggering. Approximately 59 miles from the northern border to the southern border.

[BigRedJed]

Crap, I can't redline. My branch is smack in the middle of the area of town we would redline if we were so inclined-I'd never make another loan. :D
Heh.

Yeah, another challenge for inner city development in the area of lending is the state of the banking industry in general. Back when most banks were local, it was surely easier to get loans for projects close to home. It's telling to me that most of the inner-city development in OKC has a MidFirst or BancFirst sign in front of it. To be fair, BOK does quite a bit too. But all of those are Oklahoma banks, with the first two calling OKC home.

[BigRedJed]

Holy crap. I knew Anchorage was big -- even that it was bigger than OKC -- but had no idea just HOW big until I just now Wikied it. More than twice the size of OKC, which is geographically larger than Atlanta, New York or Houston. :eek:

Running effective transit in towns like that is all but impossible. The problem is that you try to make everybody happy, and end up ****ing everyone off instead. That's why the "node" system of liveable, walkable areas along dedicated transit corridors makes so much sense. You effectively make your transit customers get to you if they want to use your services, either by commuting to the node or by moving close to.

In OKC, city leaders have also discussed eliminating the far suburbs and exburbs, and instead basically drawing a big circle on the map and saying "live inside this circle and make use of great transit, live outside and you're on your own."

[Frozen Sooner]

To be fair, though, most of Anchorage is undeveloped land. Heck, we even claim a state park as part of the city limits.

[Okla-homey]

Oh, yeah, and count me as one Democrat who's solidly behind nuclear power.

Homey, I don't know that I can get behind your idea of legislative preemption of injunctive relief. Building a large power plant of any sort near someone's property is going to lower property values in a big way. I can't see justifying that kind of taking without some sort of relief at law.

One legislative change that might be good would be the removal of absolute liability for transportation of nuclear waste. This would certainly lower costs and make insurance a hell of a lot easier to buy.

There is no such thing as economic due process for diminishment of value when the government doesn't actually take or occupy your property. A property owner's only enforceable rights are 1) due process and fair value if the property is actually taken and/or occupied by the government; 2) assertion such a plant is a public nuisance...and good luck with that. Mainly because the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a nuke plant is inherently dangerous to live near. No such proof is possible given what we know now.

I just favor such a statute to get the lawsuits under #2 kicked immediately vice taking up a few years of time and government treasure in defending against such suits.

Oh, and what's wrong with converting existing plants to nuke, or, if that is not feasible, build the nuke plant on the same site or very nearby? Afterall, existing coal-fired plants tend to be out in the sticks already. Moreover, no one could argue with a straight face they were harmed by a nuke conversion if they already live near an existing coal plant.

[Ash]

There is no such thing as economic due process for diminishment of value when the government doesn't actually take or occupy your property. A property owner's only enforceable rights are 1) due process and fair value if the property is actually taken and/or occupied by the government; 2) assertion such a plant is a public nuisance...and good luck with that. Mainly because the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a nuke plant is inherently dangerous to live near. No such proof is possible given what we know now.

I just favor such a statute to get the lawsuits under #2 kicked immediately vice taking up a few years of time and government treasure in defending against such suits.

Oh, and what's wrong with converting existing plants to nuke, or, if that is not feasible, build the nuke plant on the same site or very nearby? Afterall, existing coal-fired plants tend to be out in the sticks already. Moreover, no one could argue with a straight face they were harmed by a nuke conversion if they already live near an existing coal plant.

A very cold clinical assessment. I can't take this view, knowing ranchers and communities that have been affected by this ****.

[Frozen Sooner]

There is no such thing as economic due process for diminishment of value when the government doesn't actually take or occupy your property. A property owner's only enforceable rights are 1) due process and fair value if the property is actually taken and/or occupied by the government; 2) assertion such a plant is a public nuisance...and good luck with that. Mainly because the plaintiff bears the burden of proving a nuke plant is inherently dangerous to live near. No such proof is possible given what we know now.

I just favor such a statute to get the lawsuits under #2 kicked immediately vice taking up a few years of time and government treasure in defending against such suits.

Oh, and what's wrong with converting existing plants to nuke, or, if that is not feasible, build the nuke plant on the same site or very nearby? Afterall, existing coal-fired plants tend to be out in the sticks already. Moreover, no one could argue with a straight face they were harmed by a nuke conversion if they already live near an existing coal plant.

I did not say the government. I thought we were talking about private development. And there darn sure is precedent for compensating people for private development that devalues their property.

[StoopTroup]

I agree on the nuke issue, but we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of the spent fuel rods. Leaving them soaking in water for 500,000 years I'm not sure is gonna work.

Getting rid of the fuel rods is easy.

My Company will meerly outsource disposal to the Chinese.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Fuel rods today...

Hand warmers and halloween glow sticks tomorrow!

[John Kochtoston]

Getting rid of the fuel rods is easy.

My Company will meerly outsource disposal to the Chinese.

Serious question: Is there a reason we can't just rocket the crap to outer space?

[Vaevictis]

Serious question: Is there a reason we can't just rocket the crap to outer space?

I believe it would be a fairly unpleasant thing if a rocket carrying a bunch of spent nuclear rods were to explode a la Challenger on the way to orbit.

[John Kochtoston]

I believe it would be a fairly unpleasant thing if a rocket carrying a bunch of spent nuclear rods were to explode a la Challenger on the way to orbit.

Well, sure. But, how many times a year would we have to launch and run that risk? And, couldn't we use a more tried-and-true rocket to at least greatly minimize the risk? And, I don't want the rods in orbit. I want them gone.

[Vaevictis]

Well, sure. But, how many times a year would we have to launch and run that risk? And, couldn't we use a more tried-and-true rocket to at least greatly minimize the risk? And, I don't want the rods in orbit. I want them gone.

It only has to happen once for there to be a huge disaster.

And yeah, I understand about not wanting the rods in orbit. I didn't really mean we'd leave them there.

[Okla-homey]

I did not say the government. I thought we were talking about private development. And there darn sure is precedent for compensating people for private development that devalues their property.

Sure. People sue private parties under the nuisance theory too. People sue under all manner of wacky theories. But I'm not aware of any big recoveries.

Here's why. First off, speculative damages on claimed devaluation of property are tough to recover because they're hard to prove. You generally have to establish your property was worth x, but after the plant opened up, your property was worth y, and y < x. That can be pretty hard to do. Moreover, you are not damaged until you sell at the lower price. Just bemoaning it in advance is not gonna recover any $$$.

Secondly, if the local zoning board or other such regulatory authority allowed such development, then clearly such development was lawful. Therefore, those in the class with standing to sue are limited.

Finally, if the area in dispute is rural or not within the confines of an incorporated area, then courts very often go with the gut belief that if you choose to live in an unregulated area out in the boonies, and someone comes along and opens a business on the tract next door that you find offensive for some reason, too bad for you, because you are the one who chose to live out there where there is no central planning.

Now, all that said, its different if you property is affected or otherwise contaminated by the activity. For example, if someone starts a hog farm up the hill from your place and your land is even occasionally deluged with pig poop, you can recover damages for that.

[Big Red Ron]

The fact of the matter is, if you are a developer you are almost crazy to jump through all of the federal, state, local, lending and site acquisition hoops when you can instead buy a field from Farmer Brown, get a few simple permits, and build something that is all but guaranteed to sell. In most cities it is far cheaper (permits prices are generally not weighted to discourage suburban growth, despite the fact that new developments on the edge of a community automatically increase the tax burden for everyone else in said community). Unchecked suburban sprawl is unsustainable growth, and is one of the biggest if not the biggest factor in our current fuel crisis, and (if you believe it) eco crisis.What do you think of a light rail or even one of those new high speed magnetic rail system that circles Oklahoma County.

Allowing commuters from Norman, Moore, Mustang, Spencer, Jones, Harrah, Edmond, Yukon, etc... to make their commute to OKC with a "central station that gets you to trains/whatever to North Side, South side, downtown?

IMHO, OKC and Denver are perfect examples of sprawl, dependent on cars in their original planning. I would use such a system to get from Edmond to my office downtown.

I know that some of the people suggesting that a few years ago weren't well organized and their plans not well thought out but I def. think it could be done.

[mdklatt]

Like I said, we're in a warming trend. Similar to ones we've had in the past.

No, it's not similar. It's a lot faster, and no known "natural causes" explain it.

[mdklatt]

The Sun?

Do you honestly think that something as obvious as the sun hasn't been looked at already?

[King Crimson]

What do you think of a light rail or even one of those new high speed magnetic rail system that circles Oklahoma County.

Allowing commuters from Norman, Moore, Mustang, Spencer, Jones, Harrah, Edmond, Yukon, etc... to make their commute to OKC with a "central station that gets you to trains/whatever to North Side, South side, downtown?

IMHO, OKC and Denver are perfect examples of sprawl, dependent on cars in their original planning. I would use such a system to get from Edmond to my office downtown.

I know that some of the people suggesting that a few years ago weren't well organized and their plans not well thought out but I def. think it could be done.

Denver has excellent public transportation and new light rail from suburban communities. it rocks.

[soonerbrat]

Do you honestly think that something as obvious as the sun hasn't been looked at already?

you shouldn't look directly at the sun, it'll burn your retinas

[Harry Beanbag]

That still wouldn't solve the supply issue, though.

The problem is that there's a special component that requires a special steel forging technique and an absolutely massive infrastructure to support. The problem is that there's only one company in the world with the infrastructure (this is solvable just by throwing dollars at the problem), and that this particular company in is the only one in the world that actually has the know-how to pull it off (this is somewhat more difficult to solve).

(Interesting fact: This company is Japanese, and the way they got the expertise was in WWII building those crazy-big Yamato class battleships.)


What component are you talking about?

[Vaevictis]

What component are you talking about?

"Pressure Vessel", apparently.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms&s=polyhoo

[Okla-homey]

What do you think of a light rail or even one of those new high speed magnetic rail system that circles Oklahoma County.

Allowing commuters from Norman, Moore, Mustang, Spencer, Jones, Harrah, Edmond, Yukon, etc... to make their commute to OKC with a "central station that gets you to trains/whatever to North Side, South side, downtown?

IMHO, OKC and Denver are perfect examples of sprawl, dependent on cars in their original planning. I would use such a system to get from Edmond to my office downtown.

I know that some of the people suggesting that a few years ago weren't well organized and their plans not well thought out but I def. think it could be done.

Here's the only downside I see. Okies like their cars and trucks. The freedom they provide is highly valued. Say you're a parent employed at a downtown OKC business and the kid's school in Edmond calls at 1100 to say Johnnie has a temp of 101 and must go home. If you're reliant on the train, you might not get there in a timely manner.

I'm just saying it would require some getting used to. After all, even during the Dust Bowl years, Okies loaded up the truck or jalopy and headed to Californy. They didn't buy a train ticket, which would probably have been cheaper.

[Harry Beanbag]

"Pressure Vessel", apparently.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aaVMzCTMz3ms&s=polyhoo


Interesting. If it's a single piece, I wonder how you fuel and defuel it?

[sooneron]

Odd, this April was the warmest April I can remember in the NE.

[King Crimson]

it's supposed to snow tomorrow here in Colorado.

[Jerk]

Do you honestly think that something as obvious as the sun hasn't been looked at already?


Oh. I'm glad that the sun isn't at fault for the earth warming. I was afraid we'd have to regulate it or maybe even slap the fart tax on it.

[sooneron]

FYI, if you were to put a 100 mile by 100 mile series of Solar cells in the Mojave, you wouldn't need another power plant for the entire country. I wonder what is more cost prohibitive, building 20-30 Nuke u ler plants or a ****load of solar panels in the desert?
I am only asking this b/c Homey wants us to fire up the reactor production at whatever cost. You don't have any spent rods when you're getting your power from the sun.

[sooneron]

And for the naysayers about all this bad stuff going on...

http://www.awma.org/images/7smog.jpg


Yeah, we can't POSSIBLY be having any negative impact on the climate or environment.

:rolleyes:

[Big Red Ron]

And for the naysayers about all this bad stuff going on...

http://i.pbase.com/u42/vkantabu/large/40660709.PocatelloAirPollutionFeb2005DSCN5471.jpg


Yeah, we can't POSSIBLY be having any negative impact on the climate or environment.

:rolleyes:
Red X, eh?

I've got pictures that show Antarctica is growing. Nobody ever mentions that.

[Harry Beanbag]

FYI, if you were to put a 100 mile by 100 mile series of Solar cells in the Mojave, you wouldn't need another power plant for the entire country. I wonder what is more cost prohibitive, building 20-30 Nuke u ler plants or a ****load of solar panels in the desert?
I am only asking this b/c Homey wants us to fire up the reactor production at whatever cost. You don't have any spent rods when you're getting your power from the sun.


I would think you'd want to split that up into a few dozen different areas, if only for national security purposes.

[King Crimson]

it was Ronald Reagan who slashed the DOE budget on alternative energy. when he wasn't turning water into wine, and beating up on Granada to restore our self-vision as a military powerhouse and general ***-kicking super-power.

yeah, i know, "all he did was win the Cold War". but, that has a lot more to do with the people involved, like say, in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia than blue jeans, the free market, double R, and rock and roll.

[Ash]

Red X, eh?

I've got pictures that show Antarctica is growing. Nobody ever mentions that.

Actually it's well known. What elevational changes in Antarctica mean in terms of sea level rise is poorly known, though, much less what it means in terms of global climate change.

One of the models for feedback from increased carbon in the atmosphere is (put very simplistically) more evaporation leading to more precipitation at the poles in the form of snowfall, so this isn't a surprise and doesn't really speak either way to the long term effects of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the volume and rate that we are doing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;308/5730/1877

[sooneron]

Actually it's well known. What elevational changes in Antarctica mean in terms of sea level rise is poorly known, though, much less what it means in terms of global climate change.

One of the models for feedback from increased carbon in the atmosphere is (put very simplistically) more evaporation leading to more precipitation at the poles in the form of snowfall, so this isn't a surprise and doesn't really speak either way to the long term effects of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the volume and rate that we are doing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;308/5730/1877

oops...:rolleyes:

[SCOUT]

And for the naysayers about all this bad stuff going on...

http://www.awma.org/images/7smog.jpg


Yeah, we can't POSSIBLY be having any negative impact on the climate or environment.

:rolleyes:

It is harder to see from the bigger perspective
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/58/terra_globe0047.jpg

[sooneron]

it was Ronald Reagan who slashed the DOE budget on alternative energy. when he wasn't turning water into wine, and beating up on Granada to restore our self-vision as a military powerhouse and general ***-kicking super-power.

yeah, i know, "all he did was win the Cold War". but, that has a lot more to do with the people involved, like say, in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia than blue jeans, the free market, double R, and rock and roll.
I call poppycock! Reagan did no wrong!

[sooneron]

It is harder to see from the bigger perspective
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/58/terra_globe0047.jpg

uh, ok.

[Big Red Ron]

it was Ronald Reagan who slashed the DOE budget on alternative energy. when he wasn't turning water into wine, and beating up on Granada to restore our self-vision as a military powerhouse and general ***-kicking super-power.

yeah, i know, "all he did was win the Cold War". but, that has a lot more to do with the people involved, like say, in Poland and the former Czechoslovakia than blue jeans, the free market, double R, and rock and roll.
Hindsight is 20/20. :rolleyes:

Why didn't Clinton fix it in 8 years?

[Big Red Ron]

Actually it's well known. What elevational changes in Antarctica mean in terms of sea level rise is poorly known, though, much less what it means in terms of global climate change.

One of the models for feedback from increased carbon in the atmosphere is (put very simplistically) more evaporation leading to more precipitation at the poles in the form of snowfall, so this isn't a surprise and doesn't really speak either way to the long term effects of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at the volume and rate that we are doing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;308/5730/1877
Ah, so the north pole melting is a sign of the apocalypse but the south pole growing is just further proof. I'm not in the mood for a lot of googling but I can promise you there are scientists that disagree with the assertion you cited.

[StoopTroup]

If the Oceans freeze over...

I'm gonna go heavy in Zamboni in the Soonerfan Stock Trader.

http://z.about.com/d/philadelphia/1/0/o/PPG1.jpg

[Big Red Ron]

If the Oceans freeze over...

I'm gonna go heavy in Zamboni in the Soonerfan Stock Trader.

http://z.about.com/d/philadelphia/1/0/o/PPG1.jpgooh, good call. :D

[Ash]

Ah, so the north pole melting is a sign of the apocalypse but the south pole growing is just further proof. I'm not in the mood for a lot of googling but I can promise you there are scientists that disagree with the assertion you cited.

Give me a few names, I probably know them.

[Okla-homey]

FYI, if you were to put a 100 mile by 100 mile series of Solar cells in the Mojave, you wouldn't need another power plant for the entire country. I wonder what is more cost prohibitive, building 20-30 Nuke u ler plants or a ****load of solar panels in the desert?
I am only asking this b/c Homey wants us to fire up the reactor production at whatever cost. You don't have any spent rods when you're getting your power from the sun.

haven't you heard? there are desert box tortoises and kangaroo rats out there that must not be inconvenienced.;)

seriously, I've read stuff posted here by people who know who say the reason we Okies can't harness wind power is because we don't have the electrical grid structure to support windmill complexes.

WTF kind of infrastructure would be necessary to run electrons from the Mojave to Maine? Not to mention the fact such a complex would make an extremely tempting and very soft strategic target.

Nuke is the answer folks. Tested, proven, securable, clean as a whistle and safe. There is a lot of uranium available, it is inexpensive, and it doesn’t take a whole lot to run a plant. The spent fuel can be safely dealt with. Its not like it came from the planet Krypton afterall. Somebody dug it out of the Earth in the first place. As the other major sources of energy are expended, nuclear energy will most likely become the major source for electrical power in the world. It already is in most of western Europe. I say lets stop belching coal smoke and get with the flippin' program.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/680/coalfireot5.jpg

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1480/70334798pn4.png

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1086/electricitygen2004zt0.gif

[Big Red Ron]

Give me a few names, I probably know them.peem me as a reminder, I'm in no state to be gettin into this tonight. ;)

[Big Red Ron]

haven't you heard? there are desert box tortoises and kangaroo rats out there that must not be inconvenienced.;)

seriously, I've read stuff posted here by people who know who say the reason we Okies can't harness wind power is because we don't have the electrical grid structure to support windmill complexes.

WTF kind of infrastructure would be necessary to run electrons from the Mojave to Maine? Not to mention the fact such a complex would make an extremely tempting and very soft strategic target.

Nuke is the answer folks. Tested, proven, securable, clean as a whistle and safe. There is a lot of uranium available, it is inexpensive, and it doesn’t take a whole lot to run a plant. The spent fuel can be safely dealt with. Its not like it came from the planet Krypton afterall. Somebody dug it out of the Earth in the first place. As the other major sources of energy are expended, nuclear energy will most likely become the major source for electrical power in the world. It already is in most of western Europe. I say lets stop belching coal smoke and get with the flippin' program.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/680/coalfireot5.jpg

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1480/70334798pn4.png

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1086/electricitygen2004zt0.gif



Didn't we kill the coal deal earlier this year?

[BigRedJed]

Here's the only downside I see. Okies like their cars and trucks. The freedom they provide is highly valued. Say you're a parent employed at a downtown OKC business and the kid's school in Edmond calls at 1100 to say Johnnie has a temp of 101 and must go home. If you're reliant on the train, you might not get there in a timely manner.

I'm just saying it would require some getting used to. After all, even during the Dust Bowl years, Okies loaded up the truck or jalopy and headed to Californy. They didn't buy a train ticket, which would probably have been cheaper.
$5 per gallon will probably result in that freedom becoming LESS highly valued. You'll probably see people find more creative solutions to the problem you posit than just mindlessly hopping in the SUV.

Plus, the problem you mention wouldn't even exist if the Okie you are using as an example LIVED in downtown OKC or nearby, and had their kid in a school nearby. Or, if they worked in Edmond. I'm not just advocating a close-in lifestyle in OKC; I'm saying it can be done in any city or town.

Seriously, people (even well-off people) manage without cars, or without DEPENDING on cars, all over the world, and in other cities in the U.S. Many people here will eventually learn how to do the same. It might take years, even a decade or two, for it to become a common lifestyle. But it's coming. That doesn't mean that everybody will, of course. But those who remain slaves to their cars will end up compromising on their lifestyles in other areas.

And again, this is not directed at people who for whatever reason live a truly rural lifestyle. Farmers, ranchers and the people who provide services to them will always require easily-accessible personal vehicles to get their work done, but I'll point out that they usually have the perfect short commute anyway. The people who needlessly waste their money and available time are the people who commute from the suburbs or exburbs to the center of a city to work.

[BigRedJed]

And for the record, I'm down with nuclear too. Although selfishly I'd like to see lots of natural gas fired power plants built in other states.

[Harry Beanbag]

$5 per gallon will probably result in that freedom becoming LESS highly valued. You'll probably see people find more creative solutions to the problem you posit than just mindlessly hopping in the SUV.

Plus, the problem you mention wouldn't even exist if the Okie you are using as an example LIVED in downtown OKC or nearby, and had their kid in a school nearby. Or, if they worked in Edmond. I'm not just advocating a close-in lifestyle in OKC; I'm saying it can be done in any city or town.

Seriously, people (even well-off people) manage without cars, or without DEPENDING on cars, all over the world, and in other cities in the U.S. Many people here will eventually learn how to do the same. It might take years, even a decade or two, for it to become a common lifestyle. But it's coming. That doesn't mean that everybody will, of course. But those who remain slaves to their cars will end up compromising on their lifestyles in other areas.

And again, this is not directed at people who for whatever reason live a truly rural lifestyle. Farmers, ranchers and the people who provide services to them will always require easily-accessible personal vehicles to get their work done, but I'll point out that they usually have the perfect short commute anyway. The people who needlessly waste their money and available time are the people who commute from the suburbs or exburbs to the center of a city to work.


What's an acceptable commute distance in this view?

[sooneron]

haven't you heard? there are desert box tortoises and kangaroo rats out there that must not be inconvenienced.;)

seriously, I've read stuff posted here by people who know who say the reason we Okies can't harness wind power is because we don't have the electrical grid structure to support windmill complexes.

WTF kind of infrastructure would be necessary to run electrons from the Mojave to Maine? Not to mention the fact such a complex would make an extremely tempting and very soft strategic target.

Nuke is the answer folks. Tested, proven, securable, clean as a whistle and safe. There is a lot of uranium available, it is inexpensive, and it doesn’t take a whole lot to run a plant. The spent fuel can be safely dealt with. Its not like it came from the planet Krypton afterall. Somebody dug it out of the Earth in the first place. As the other major sources of energy are expended, nuclear energy will most likely become the major source for electrical power in the world. It already is in most of western Europe. I say lets stop belching coal smoke and get with the flippin' program.


I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the nuke thing, I'm just saying that if we're spending x amount, why not make it the safest and I call bs on the easy target thing. The US government can protect pretty much what it wants to provided there's some (big stretch) competence.
How many plants have been taken out thus far? Hoover dam? anything?
I think the most prohibitive thing about the solar dealio is that all the production is in one place and that means Duke Energy ... etc. is out of the $ loop. Let's face it, those types of folks contribute WAY too much to campaigns
If we do go more towards nuke, I say we jettison it out into space.

[BigRedJed]

What's an acceptable commute distance in this view?
Depends entirely on your circumstances. But if you build walkable communities with higher density, available entertainment and services, quality employment opportunities and education centers, many people could convert a one hour round trip commute into walking a few blocks. An extreme example, but work with me here.

Say you have a car that gets 25 MPG and your round trip commute is 30 miles (common in OKC, I think). At today's prices, that will run you around $1000 per year. This doesn't factor in that if you live in one of the parts of town that require an hour-long roundtrip commute, you probably also have to drive all over creation to shop, or dine out, or go to the doctor...

If you can eliminate or seriously reduce that $1000+ hit to your annual budget, you probably wouldn't hate that. But the real advantage, IMO, is what it can do for your time. Cut out a one hour commute for ten years, and you just bought yourself nearly an extra year's worth of eight hour days. This is time you can spend at home, with your kids, working on other projects, whatever. Imagine the productivity you could gain. If your commute is 45 minutes one way, you can gain nearly a year and a half in workdays of your life back, over the course of ten. Windshield time is the most insidious stealer of time there is in sprawl cities.

Again, that example is extreme. Maybe a better example would be the family that moves from Piedmont or Deer Creek to Crown Heights or Heritage Hills, etc. They were sold a bill of goods when they bought into the idea that life up in Edmond is somehow magically better. They have to drive everywhere to do anything. Dad drives to OKC to work, and they still have to drive here to play, go to games, concerts, shopping, dinner.

They move to the near northwest part of town (not giving up their precious cars), and instantly cut their gasoline bill in half. In fact they might save enough to pay for private schools, althought the OKC school district is rapidly improving, so a publicly-funded magnet school might be the ticket. Either way, dad has more time to spend with the kids, the family has easy entertainment options, and as a group they are doing a small part to help America end its dependence on foreign oil.

If you still have to live in outlying areas for whatever reason but have good, appealing transit available, you could always schedule activities (newspaper reading, responding to e-mails) for your train time, something you can't (or shouldn't) do during windsheild time.

Barring all of this, a lot of people will probably have to learn to carpool, if gasoline prices become too high for people to stand. Obviously, they are still not there, despite all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Those options exist today, and people all over the country are making choices like this. As the years go by, as cities rebuild their cores, and as fuel prices go up, these lifestyles will become more and more appealing, and eventually won't seem odd or out-of-step with people's expectations. The expectations and suburban aspirations we have today are mostly a product of the last half-century, and they can/will eventually become unlearned.

[sooneron]

$5 per gallon will probably result in that freedom becoming LESS highly valued. You'll probably see people find more creative solutions to the problem you posit than just mindlessly hopping in the SUV.

Plus, the problem you mention wouldn't even exist if the Okie you are using as an example LIVED in downtown OKC or nearby, and had their kid in a school nearby. Or, if they worked in Edmond. I'm not just advocating a close-in lifestyle in OKC; I'm saying it can be done in any city or town.

Seriously, people (even well-off people) manage without cars, or without DEPENDING on cars, all over the world, and in other cities in the U.S. Many people here will eventually learn how to do the same. It might take years, even a decade or two, for it to become a common lifestyle. But it's coming. That doesn't mean that everybody will, of course. But those who remain slaves to their cars will end up compromising on their lifestyles in other areas.

And again, this is not directed at people who for whatever reason live a truly rural lifestyle. Farmers, ranchers and the people who provide services to them will always require easily-accessible personal vehicles to get their work done, but I'll point out that they usually have the perfect short commute anyway. The people who needlessly waste their money and available time are the people who commute from the suburbs or exburbs to the center of a city to work.

I think the onset of more telecommuting will contribute to less peeps on the road, as well. It will start to seem more viable to companies that would be footing the bill for a company car's gas.

[Civicus_Sooner]

So Jed, what's your take on some type of commuter transit system mentioned on page 6 of this thread for OKC?

[Blue]

10,000 dead in China Quake....global warming.

[mdklatt]

10,000 dead in China Quake....global warming.

Well, melting glaciers can cause seismic activity....


P.S. That's a joke. I mean, what I said is true, but I'm not trying to link the China earthquake to climate change.

[sooneron]

10,000 dead in China Quake....global warming.

Shouldn't this be in the over-population thread?

[Blue]

Quake=10,000 dead=Over-population=global warming. AHAAA!!!!!!

[BigRedJed]

So Jed, what's your take on some type of commuter transit system mentioned on page 6 of this thread for OKC?
I think that it will make sense to have commuter rail, long term. But I think right now it is unlikely to happen for several reasons, not the least of which is lack of population density and lack of traffic congestion. That said, it is better to plan ahead and have a solution to those problems BEFORE they emerge.

It's important to draw a distinction between commuter rail and light rail, though. I think that very quickly we will have a light rail circulator in the inner city. This will probably be a result of the next MAPS program. A light rail circulator would be more of a step-on, step-off trolley type system rather than a higher-speed, more trainlike commuter rail.

A light rail circulator would make sense even today, would feed inner-city, downtown-midtown development, and would be pretty economical to pull off.

A true commuter rail, reaching Edmond and/or Norman and/or MWC and/or Yukon, or anything along those lines would be far more ambitious, and less likely to happen soon. Also, the City of OKC would not consider (at least under the current administration) footing the bill for an entire line going to bedroom communities. The Mayor is on record saying that those cities would have to pay to play, in effect, because commuter rail would actually add more value to THEM instead of OKC.

That's not to say that OKC wouldn't enthusiastically play along if the cities jumped on it; it would still be a good thing for the metro, and would help OKC continue to build upon its success and quality of life improvements.

But making far-flung living attractive for people who choose that lifestyle shouldn't be (and won't be) a burden that OKC bears totally by itself. Remember, people who choose to live in those cities pay their taxes (property taxes, which support the schools, and sales taxes, which support a city's general fund) in those cities, not OKC.

[Sooner_Havok]

Two reasons you can't/don't want to shoot spent nuclear waste into space.

1) Rockets blow up. One rocket blowing up and distributing nuclear waste into the world's jet streams and we are in worse trouble then we are now with coal and oil.

2) There is still a metric **** ton of energy in nuclear waste. Some day we might find a way to harness this energy. Would really suck to have blasted all that potential energy into space.

Utah is big and has geologically stable mountains. Dig, bury, repeat.

[Jerk]

For the record, I support getting as many cars off the interstates as possible.

[Sooner_Havok]

I recall hearing somewhere that as the polar ice melts or is a big ice damn breaks due to global warmfulness the oceanic currents would be altered. And if the Gulf Stream doesn't keep the US NE and the Western Europe warm, they would start to get colder and the glaciers could move farther south. That would then cause a sharp drop in global temperatures. In the end, greenhouse gasses may trigger a new ice age.

[SoonerInKCMO]

Great. More Canucks moving down here. :mad:

[Harry Beanbag]

Two reasons you can't/don't want to shoot spent nuclear waste into space.

1) Rockets blow up. One rocket blowing up and distributing nuclear waste into the world's jet streams and we are in worse trouble then we are now with coal and oil.

2) There is still a metric **** ton of energy in nuclear waste. Some day we might find a way to harness this energy. Would really suck to have blasted all that potential energy into space.

Utah is big and has geologically stable mountains. Dig, bury, repeat.


The Navy has been burying nuclear waste, including reactor vessels and entire reactor compartments from decommissioned ships, in southern Washington for 50 years now. It can be done.

[Sooner_Havok]

The Navy has been burying nuclear waste, including reactor vessels and entire reactor compartments from decommissioned ships, in southern Washington for 50 years now. It can be done.

Yup, then we can dig it up later if we need it

[Okla-homey]

Two reasons you can't/don't want to shoot spent nuclear waste into space.

1) Rockets blow up. One rocket blowing up and distributing nuclear waste into the world's jet streams and we are in worse trouble then we are now with coal and oil.

2) There is still a metric **** ton of energy in nuclear waste. Some day we might find a way to harness this energy. Would really suck to have blasted all that potential energy into space.

Utah is big and has geologically stable mountains. Dig, bury, repeat.

or, in the alternative, there is this very deep part of the Pacific called the Marianas Trench. Almost seven miles deep. That's 35,904' to you and me. Just boat that stuff out there in barrels tied on the deck, get the crew drunk, and oopsie, spent fuel disposal problem solved!

Of course, then you have to deal with the Godzilla Contingency if any mutations result down there.;)

[Sooner_Havok]

or, in the alternative, there is this very deep part of the Pacific called the Marianas Trench. Almost seven miles deep. That's 35,904' to you and me. Just boat that stuff out there in barrels tied on the deck, get the crew drunk, and oopsie, spent fuel disposal problem solved!

Of course, then you have to deal with the Godzilla Contingency if any mutations result down there.;)

I would say **** yeah, dump it there! But again, if we ever need it, we are boned

[OUWxGuesser]

I recall hearing somewhere that as the polar ice melts or is a big ice damn breaks due to global warmfulness the oceanic currents would be altered. And if the Gulf Stream doesn't keep the US NE and the Western Europe warm, they would start to get colder and the glaciers could move farther south. That would then cause a sharp drop in global temperatures. In the end, greenhouse gasses may trigger a new ice age.

See the Younger Dryas Event, as this is the most popular theory for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

This brings up an important point though... are we warming (globally and over the past century? Yes Are we having an influence? Yes. Are we certain what's going to happen in the future? Nope. (other than the greenhouse feedback). Too many incomplete links in the carbon cycle, cloud and aerosol (pollution) feedbacks, ice feedbacks, and of course the biggest player, the oceanic circulation. That's my official, I'm a fancy smancy doctoral student in meteorology response. so :P

[Big Red Ron]

I think that it will make sense to have commuter rail, long term. But I think right now it is unlikely to happen for several reasons, not the least of which is lack of population density and lack of traffic congestion. That said, it is better to plan ahead and have a solution to those problems BEFORE they emerge.

It's important to draw a distinction between commuter rail and light rail, though. I think that very quickly we will have a light rail circulator in the inner city. This will probably be a result of the next MAPS program. A light rail circulator would be more of a step-on, step-off trolley type system rather than a higher-speed, more trainlike commuter rail.

A light rail circulator would make sense even today, would feed inner-city, downtown-midtown development, and would be pretty economical to pull off.

A true commuter rail, reaching Edmond and/or Norman and/or MWC and/or Yukon, or anything along those lines would be far more ambitious, and less likely to happen soon. Also, the City of OKC would not consider (at least under the current administration) footing the bill for an entire line going to bedroom communities. The Mayor is on record saying that those cities would have to pay to play, in effect, because commuter rail would actually add more value to THEM instead of OKC.

That's not to say that OKC wouldn't enthusiastically play along if the cities jumped on it; it would still be a good thing for the metro, and would help OKC continue to build upon its success and quality of life improvements.

But making far-flung living attractive for people who choose that lifestyle shouldn't be (and won't be) a burden that OKC bears totally by itself. Remember, people who choose to live in those cities pay their taxes (property taxes, which support the schools, and sales taxes, which support a city's general fund) in those cities, not OKC.I agree with all that but Mick also knows that part of the "problem" is based on poor planning and management in OKC until about the last couple of decades. Heck, the fact that we have cities within OKC (Nichols Hills, Lake Aluma, Bethany, etc...) proves how poorly planned Oklahoma was from it's inception.

Mick also knows he can't just force everyone to live downtown or even in OKC, nor penalize those that don't. After all, OKC depends on the sales tax generated by commuters. OKC is the only city that would benefit from a rail system. I live in Edmond and office in downtown OKC. I personally wouldn't live in most areas of OKC but I spend almost all of my disposable cash and business expenses in OKC. Why would the city of Edmond pay for a rail system that just makes it easier for me to spend my money in another community?

[soonerhubs]

Utah is big and has geologically stable mountains. Dig, bury, repeat.

:mad: :mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

See the Younger Dryas Event, as this is the most popular theory for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

This brings up an important point though... are we warming (globally and over the past century? Yes Are we having an influence? Yes. Are we certain what's going to happen in the future? Nope. (other than the greenhouse feedback). Too many incomplete links in the carbon cycle, cloud and aerosol (pollution) feedbacks, ice feedbacks, and of course the biggest player, the oceanic circulation. That's my official, I'm a fancy smancy doctoral student in meteorology response. so :P

Yeah, well, what the hell do you know?:gary:

[Sooner_Havok]

:mad: :mad:

What? I promise we will bury it deeper than most cable and phone lines :D

[sooneron]

Two reasons you can't/don't want to shoot spent nuclear waste into space.

1) Rockets blow up. One rocket blowing up and distributing nuclear waste into the world's jet streams and we are in worse trouble then we are now with coal and oil.

2) There is still a metric **** ton of energy in nuclear waste. Some day we might find a way to harness this energy. Would really suck to have blasted all that potential energy into space.

Utah is big and has geologically stable mountains. Dig, bury, repeat.

I'll buy your second one, but what about sending it via one of the new ways they're discussing getting into orbit - electromagnet etc.???

[mdklatt]

For the record, I support getting as many cars off the interstates as possible.

Selfish bastard. :D

[mdklatt]

:mad: :mad:

Why don't we bury our nuclear waste in the middle of Australia? That's the most geologically stable continent, and once you get 50-100 miles from the coasts there's virtually nothing. We can pay them back in beer.

[BigRedJed]

I agree with all that but Mick also knows that part of the "problem" is based on poor planning and management in OKC until about the last couple of decades...
Actually, the planning has been WORSE the last couple of decades. It started getting really poor post WWII, and never looked back. Only within the past 10 years have anti-sprawl discussions even crossed the lips of city leaders, and we still don't actively do anything to discourage sprawl. At this point we're really only doing things to ENCOURAGE inner-city development, and it is still much easier/cheaper to develop in the hinterlands. The Mayor knows this and seems to be pretty open to reversing it, but these are changes that will require fundamental shifts in the planning and public works departments. It will take years.

Mick also knows he can't just force everyone to live downtown or even in OKC, nor penalize those that don't...
Well, I never said it all has to be downtown. However, someone living in Val Verde or the like is a major asset to OKC while someone living in Piedmont, Deer Creek, Edmond or the like is often only a marginal asset, and sometimes a downright parasite. Why? Because as retail/dining opportunities increase in places like that, more and more if not 100% of their sales tax dollars are captured outside of OKC, and generally 100% of their property tax goes to suburban school districts.

Yet OKC often provides them police, fire, water, trash, some services at drastically subsidized prices, some services for FREE, all of it costing OKC's regular taxpayers dearly. That is why you see housing districts up there advertise "OKC utilities, Edmond schools!" Much sought-after, and the best of both worlds. But it creates a situation where OKC taxpayers are subsidizing the lifestyles of people living in other communities and other school districts, with little (and sometimes zero) return.

And yeah, you damn sure CAN penalize that. By making building permits more expensive there. By de-annexing. By drawing a line in the sand and saying "we won't provide services beyond this point."

It's OKC's fault that it got this bad (just like many other cities around the country), but OKC can also reverse the trend if it chooses to.

...OKC is the only city that would benefit from a rail system... ...Why would the city of Edmond pay for a rail system that just makes it easier for me to spend my money in another community?
I love you dude, but that is just completely, DEAD wrong. Edmond benefits more in that scenario. It's an amenity for them. Great that you spend money in OKC; we appreciate it! :D But plenty of people who live up there simply don't. And the rail system wouldn't always (or even most of the time) be bringing shoppers; it would be bringing workers, who pay their property taxes elsewhere, who probably grocery shop elsewhere, who shop at Lowe's elsewhere, who eat elsewhere (most of the time).

Sure, OKC gets incremental income from them, but remember, 100% of the income they take is FROM OKC in the first place. They're redistributing OKC-generated wealth to their own commnuities. OKC is far better off if those workers live in OKC, whether they live in The Greens, Bocage, or places like the upscale Chatenay addition on the southside.

And Ron, I know you know the Mayor. Ask him about it. HE'S the one on record (http://newsok.com/article/keyword/3228383/) saying commuter rail would not be built to cities like Edmond and Norman unless those communities were paying part of the freight. Here's a quote from just a few weeks ago:

...Responding to a question about public transportation, Cornett said he wants to see a light rail system that serves downtown and tourists. But he added he would want to see Edmond and Norman participate in funding additional rail links to those suburbs.

"I don't think we're going to create more interest in downtown by making it easier to live in Edmond or Norman,” Cornett said...

[Half a Hundred]

BTW, we can reuse the spent nuclear waste: (I know it's just wiki, but useful)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_reprocessing

Problem is, there is no political will behind it, mostly because the politics were carried out in the China Syndrome days. People were too afraid the Pu-239 (which is about as good as you can get for reactors) would be used for nuclear bombs if intercepted (of course, it would really only be useful for very small bombs, not to say that wouldn't cause damage, in unskilled hands; you need oralloy for the bigguns). Practically every other country in the world does this to extend their fuel supply. I've heard estimates that if we were to convert to 70% nuclear energy production, with current reprocessing technology, we would have reserves for somewhere around 600 to 1,000 years.

Basically, with proper management and security, we don't have to worry about burying the stuff, since the "dangerous for 100,000 years" material would be still at work boiling water. I've heard that the leftovers would be mostly alpha and beta emitters, and that at most they would have half-lives of 500 years. As long as we don't plan on wrecking shop anytime soon, that's easily manageable.