Is there any reason not to try... not to just "go for it?"

[iNow]

Watch.

 

 

 

 

 

Discuss.

[antimatter]

Interesting, but I think he's really over-estimating.

As someone on youtube already posted, it isn't going to be 100%.

We shouldn't even strive for that. I think it's good that he's trying to change things (for the better), but IMHO there are better ways of doing it.

[Phi for All]

This is an optimum moment to change a great deal that needs changing:

 

We have a nationwide shortage of asphalt due to asphalt oil price increases. If we stopped letting people drive on asphalt the day it's put down, we could save billions every year by letting it cure longer and suffering a little inconvenience.

 

We subsidize established markets like oil, milk, sugar and corn for no good reason and many bad ones. We wouldn't need tax increases if we didn't spend taxes on these subsidies.

 

Patented technology that could help is being suppressed so it doesn't harm the profits of a current market. We need to change patent law so that mega-corps who can afford to extend patents can't do so to keep us from progressing.

 

 

 

I agree with Gore that we need to start now to protect ourselves and our environment and I can't find any fault with the idea of moving in a direction that empowers us without polluting us. If we're not seriously committed to moving off-planet in the very near future, we need to become more sustainable in our world view.

[Severian]

On the one hand it seems such a shame that he never became President, but on the other hand I truly wonder if it was the event of not becoming President which inspired him to stand up and be counted for what he believes in. I suspect the establishment squeezes the principles out of anyone who actually becomes President.

[ParanoiA]

I don't see any reason not to try and of course I'm on board with the idea that independence from oil solves at least two major problems, possibly three.

 

Patented technology that could help is being suppressed so it doesn't harm the profits of a current market. We need to change patent law so that mega-corps who can afford to extend patents can't do so to keep us from progressing.

 

I think the whole concept of intellectual property rights and patents out to be reviewed. Current Patent, Copyright and Trademark laws have always felt viscerally wrong to me. It just seems a bit too much credit is presumed to the creator of an idea, and a bit much restriction applied.

[JohnB]

He has a great speech writer.

[iNow]

He has a great speech writer.

 

As often as he does this, and for as long as he's been delivering the message, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if most, if not all, of it was written by him.

 

Here's the whole speech:

 

 

 

And a link to it's transcript:

 

http://www.wecansolveit.org/pages/al_gore_a_generational_challenge_to_repower_america

[Phi for All]

I think the whole concept of intellectual property rights and patents out to be reviewed. Current Patent, Copyright and Trademark laws have always felt viscerally wrong to me. It just seems a bit too much credit is presumed to the creator of an idea, and a bit much restriction applied.

Consider also that patents are being extended, in a time when technology is improving at such a rapid pace that some patents could conceivably be suppressed long enough to make the new technology obsolete as the market moves past it. How much technology that could spark even greater technology will we miss out on because it could hurt a current market? If a technological singularity is on the horizon, how will current patent law keep pace (or fail to)?

[iNow]

This is just too cool not to share again:

 

 

nsf.gov - News - Water Refineries? - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

 

"

New method extracts oxygen from water with minimal energy, potentially boosting efforts to develop solar as a 24-hour energy source

 

Using a surprisingly simple, inexpensive technique, chemists have found a way to pull pure oxygen from water using relatively small amounts of electricity, common chemicals and a room-temperature glass of water.

 

Because oxygen and hydrogen are energy-rich fuels, many researchers have proposed using solar electricity to split water into those elements--a stored energy source for when the sun goes down. One of the chief obstacles to that green-energy scenario has been the difficulty of producing oxygen without large amounts of energy or a high-maintenance environment.

Now, Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemist Daniel Nocera and his postdoctoral student Matthew Kanan have discovered an efficient way to solve the oxygen problem. They announced their findings July 31, 2008, online in the journal Science.

 

"The discovery has enormous implications for the large scale deployment of solar since it puts us on the doorstep of a cheap and easily manufactured storage mechanism," said Nocera. "The ease of implementation means that this discovery will have legs..." <more at link>

 

 

 

A snapshot showing the new, efficient oxygen catalyst in action in Dan Nocera's laboratory at MIT.

 

Credit: MIT/NSF

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+ -- Kanan and Nocera, 10.1126/science.1162018 -- Science

 

 

In Situ Formation of an Oxygen-Evolving Catalyst in Neutral Water Containing Phosphate and Co2+

 

"The utilization of solar energy on a large scale requires its storage. In natural photosynthesis, energy from sunlight is used to rearrange the bonds of water to O2 and H2-equivalents. The realization of artificial systems that perform similar "water splitting" requires catalysts that produce O2 from water without the need for excessive driving potentials. Here, we report such a catalyst that forms upon the oxidative polarization of an inert indium tin oxide electrode in phosphate-buffered water containing Co2+. A variety of analytical techniques indicates the presence of phosphate in an approximate 1:2 ratio with cobalt in this material. The pH dependence of the catalytic activity also implicates HPO42– as the proton acceptor in the O2-producing reaction. This catalyst not only forms in situ from earth-abundant materials but also operates in neutral water under ambient conditions. "

[iNow]

This is pretty amazing. I've seen this guys work on injecting metaillic nanoparticles into cancer cells and hitting them with radio waves on 60 Minutes. It's a clever approach, and holds a great deal of promise.

 

Either way, during John Kanzius' research, he found out that he could burn salt water. Yep... You heard me correctly. Salt water. Enjoy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_vjQgCvISU

[Gilded]

Either way, during John Kanzius' research, he found out that he could burn salt water. Yep... You heard me correctly. Salt water. Enjoy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_vjQgCvISU

 

Wow, he's separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, a gas mix which can be ignited! I think that was first done in the early 1800s. The cancer research is rather interesting though. And I suppose some industrial processes could benefit from decomposition of molecules without electrodes.

[Sayonara]

Manbearpig!

[Gilded]

Manbearpig!

 

Half man, half bear and half pig! I'm serial!

[Sayonara]

I'm so super, super serial you guys.

[iNow]

The challenge with the salt water idea is that it still takes energy to power the radio wave generator. I'm not sure how they're factoring that into the mix.

[Sayonara]

Major deja vu. Didn't we already have a thread about the saltwater bit?

[bascule]

I'm a bit taken aback by Gore's statement.

 

He's effectively arguing that the oil crisis, economic crisis, and environmental crisis are intrinsically linked.

 

Given that, would it be unreasonable for a Laissez Faire advocate to argue that the market will eventually solve the problem?

 

Oddly enough, I'd almost agree that it's not too unsound to sit around waiting for the market to solve the problem. At the very least it's a defensible policy position.

 

I'm rather surprised Penn & Teller didn't try to argue that on their episode on global warming...

[iNow]

MIT President calls for an "Energy Manhattan Project."

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091002722_pf.html

 

Today, the United States is tangled in a triple knot: a shaky economy, battered by volatile energy prices; world politics weighed down by issues of energy consumption and security; and mounting evidence of global climate change.

Building on the wisdom of Vannevar Bush, I believe we can address all three problems at once with dramatic new federal investment in energy research and development. If one advance could transform America's prospects, it would be ready access, at scale, to a range of affordable, renewable, low-carbon energy technologies -- from large-scale solar and wind energy to safe nuclear power. Only one path will lead to such transformative technologies: research. Yet federal funding for energy research has dwindled to irrelevance. In 1980, 10 percent of federal research dollars went to energy. Today, the share is 2 percent.

 

Research investment by U.S. energy companies has mirrored this drop. In 2004, it stood at $1.2 billion in today's dollars. This might suit a cost-efficient, technologically mature, fossil-fuel-based energy sector, but it is insufficient for any industry that depends on innovation. Pharmaceutical companies invest 18 percent of revenue in R&D. Semiconductor firms invest 16 percent. Energy companies invest less than one-quarter of 1 percent. With this pattern of investment, we cannot expect an energy technology revolution.

 

While industry must support technology development, only government can prime the research pump. Congress must lead.

 

 

h/t

[ParanoiA]

As a matter of national security, I could probably go for that. I would like to see some slash and burn to fund it though. Every dollar going to the Manhattan Energy Project should be complimented by a dollar slashed from something else. There's a lot of "something else's" that could use slashing, which will tickle the republicans while the energy project would tickle the democrats and everybody lives happily ever after.

[iNow]

On Oct. 29, former Vice President Al Gore will address youth everywhere in the first-ever Power Vote live webcast. He'll be talking about his Repower America challenge, the connections between the economic and climate crises, and the importance of the upcoming election.

 

Sign up below to join the webcast.

 

 

Event: Power Vote 2008 Webcast featuring Al Gore

Date: Oct. 29th

Time: 5 p.m. PST / 8 p.m. EST

(it will be recorded if you can't make it.)

 

http://www.wecansolveit.org/page/s/gorepowervote

 

 

Next Wednesday, Vice President Gore is headlining the Power Vote live webcast to college campuses, and as a "We" member, we'd like to invite you to tune in. To RSVP, just go to:

 

http://www.wecansolveit.org/PowerVoteRSVP/

 

He'll be talking to young leaders across the nation about the "Repower America" challenge he issued last summer. About how energy and climate are at the core of the economic and security issues we face. And about why elections matter.

[iNow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7748247.stm

'World mandate' on climate action

 

An opinion poll in 11 countries has produced what organisers term a "global mandate" for action on climate change.

 

About half of the respondents wanted governments to play a major role in curbing emissions, but only a quarter said their leaders were doing enough.

 

In developing countries, a majority of people were prepared to make "lifestyle changes" to reduce climate change.

 

"It does show that people in the world expect their governments to take strong action as as matter of responsibility, and hope they will work with other governments to take action," he told BBC News.

 

"It is not a story which says 'I will do something only if others do'."

 

The survey revealed that 43% of people questioned put climate change ahead of the world's financial instability as an issue of current concern, even though the surveys ran in the turbulent months of September and October.

 

"Despite the fact this research took place at a time when the global financial crisis was taking off, climate change was very much in the minds of the general public as an issue of concern," commented Francis Sullivan, HSBC's environmental advisor and a former director of conservation with the environment group WWF.

[JohnB]

Firstly, a poll result is useless unless you know exactly what the questions were.

 

Secondly,

The HSBC Climate Confidence Monitor polled 1,000 people in each of the countries mentioned above, and in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong.

So, 1,000 people in 11 nations, that's 11,000 people.

The survey revealed that 43% of people questioned put climate change ahead of the world's financial instability as an issue of current concern,

Which means 57% didn't.

However, the numbers saying they would alter their lifestyles to reduce climate change had fallen in the year between the previous survey, in 2007, and this one.

 

This still left sizeable majorities in most of the developing countries polled - Brazil, India, Malaysia and Mexico - saying they were willing to make changes.

"Sizeable majorities". Let's say that is 600 in each of those nations, so that's 2400 people. Even if it was a majority in all 11 nations, that number could be as low as 6,000.

 

And this gives a "Global Mandate" for the lives of 6,500,000,000 people? Pull the other one.

 

Jeez, phrase the questions right and I reckon I could get more people than that to agree that the earth might be flat. Would that give a Global Mandate for teaching flat earth theory?

 

How does this poll stack up against the one from June?

The Ipsos MORI poll, published by The Observer, found 60 percent of the 1,039 British adults asked agreed that "many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change," with a further 40 percent saying they "sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say."

60% plus a further 40% =100%. Yet the article goes on to say;

But 75 percent of the respondents said they were "concerned about climate change."

This is why I don't trust polls.

 

For those who haven't seen it, this clip from the british series "Yes, Prime Minister" is both funny and enlightening.

[iNow]

I think you may have missed the point, John, but I do appreciate the research design tutorial you gave. I'm well aware of those things you mentioned, but I posted a link to the BBC for crying out loud, not some peer reviewed journal. The intent was to suggest that there is a growing concern and that more people support action in this arena, not "Hey look! Science proves blah blah blah..."

 

Gosh... you're such a buzz kill.

[JohnB]

Sorry mate. Everybody has their trigger and politicians claiming a "mandate" because of some piddly little poll is one of mine.

 

For many reasons.

[CaptainPanic]

I think that the challenge that Al gore has set can be reached.

 

It would require a bit of a "war-economy" with forced investments. The market will not do this by itself, because the energy market, and its customers have interest in cheap and reliable energy today and tomorrow. After tomorrow is the far future.

 

Obviously, a major investment will have a very long pay-back time. But the nice thing about investing in sustainable energy (especially wind and solar) is that you're only left with some maintenance after the initial investments.

 

FYI, wind-power costs about 1 euro per watt (of installed peak power). That's maintenance included for a few years... but not for 30 years or so.

 

I've once calculated for the Netherlands how expensive it would be to supply 100% of our total energy (not just electricity, but every Gigajoule that we need) by windpower alone (which is a rather stupid thing to do, but really easy to calculate).

 

How many turbines we'd need, and the costs of that. It's both affordable and it can be built (there is enough space, and enough steel). For such a massive undertaking, we'd require an investment of about 5-10% of our gross national income... which is indeed massive, but for example equal to the USA's expenses on "Defense". I can post the calculation, but even though it is simple, it's still a long post.