Happy Gates

22 responses to “Happy Gates”

1. 

   scleroplex

   Mar 13, 2012 at 3:36 am

   nice! 🙂

   as for the other thing, the cost of a pripyat/fukushima cleanup should be included in all cost calculations……

   Reply
2. 

   jurvetson

   Mar 13, 2012 at 4:06 am

   And the global health effects of any coal plant too, yes? To be fair.

   P.S. I just read about another speaker, Robert Friedland, and his influence on Steve Jobs.

   Reply
3. 

   Pieces of Eye

   Mar 13, 2012 at 6:45 am

   Did not expect to see George Lucas when I read that plaque.

   Reply
4. 

   scleroplex

   Mar 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm

   >And the global health effects of any coal plant too, yes? To be fair.

   indeed.
   that’s the whole point of cradle-to-cradle calculations.

   that same principle is why tobacco companies are asked to pay for public health efforts.
   they should be paying more than they are but the basic principle is now established.

   Reply
5. 

   drona

   Mar 13, 2012 at 4:04 pm

   Cool!

   Reply
6. 

   jurvetson

   Mar 13, 2012 at 4:08 pm

   @scleroplex – I wish nuclear was held to that standard, alongside coal. We’d have a lot more nuclear plants. 10x as many people die in Asia alone from coal, every year (no disaster or hypothetical required), than have ever died from all nuclear energy activities globally. And even more surreal, environmentalist Stewart Brand summarizes the World Health Organization study: "Fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself." Dwell on that for a moment… The human dialog on nuclear energy has killed more people than nuclear energy.

   @physicsman – yeah, he is quite the introvert.

   P.S. and here’s a link to all of my Gates photoblog posts

   

   Reply
7. 

   gsikich1

   Mar 13, 2012 at 4:58 pm

   I can tell you a bit about clean gas based on a project in Texas. By the way, nice shot too. As for the nuclear issue – still has the hurdle of licensing and the NIMBY factor

   Reply
8. 

   scleroplex

   Mar 13, 2012 at 5:12 pm

   yes, we do not live in a data-driven world.
   the problem people have with nuclear also is the time scale for recovery.

   another super photo too 🙂

   Reply
9. 

   solerena

   Mar 13, 2012 at 9:24 pm

   Great historical portraits here…

   Reply
10. 

    Happy Tinfoil Cat

    Mar 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    Does that include the thousands of Chinese that die in the coal mines every year?

    Reply
11. 

    jurvetson

    Mar 14, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    Yup, but miner deaths are dwarfed by the 720,000 deaths — per year — in China alone, from coal’s pollution of the air (wikipedia).

    And then there’s the CO2 effects on top of that, with global impact. Stewart brand summarizes:

    "Coal is now understood to be the long-term systemic horror we once thought nuclear was."

    And in Japan, the safety focus should be on the tsunami, which killed 20,000, not the nuclear "disaster" which killed zero. Well, anxiety about it is probably the biggest problem. Just like Chernobyl. Again, from Brand’s Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto:

    "Fear of radiation is a far more important health threat than radiation itself. The zone’s evacuation put an end to industrialization, deforestation, cultivation and other human intrusions, making it one of Ukraine’s environmentally cleanest regions… The world’s worst nuclear power plant disaster is not as destructive to wildlife populations as are normal human activities. Even where the levels of radiation are highest, wildlife abounds. I predict there will be a Chernobyl National Park."

    Reply
12. 

    scleroplex

    Mar 14, 2012 at 5:05 pm

    clearly coal is not cheap.
    it never was.

    Reply
13. 

    -fCh-

    Mar 15, 2012 at 5:12 am

    coal miners more or less choose their profession, victims of nuclear disaster are by and large a random sample

    Reply
14. 

    jurvetson

    Mar 15, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    The miners are less than .5% of the problem in China. For the 99.5% that die each year from coal, they are a random sample too.

    The "victims" of nuclear energy are, so far, statistical noise. More have died from wind power or hydro or just about any energy source you would choose as a substitute over the same period of time (comparison table).

    Please realize that the "victims" of nuclear energy are, by and large, the people who hear one-sided anti-nuclear arguments. The rhetoric does more harm than the radiation. Is there any other subject of protest where this is true?

    Reply
15. 

    -fCh-

    Mar 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Steve, thanks for the pointer. I wasn’t making a point about the merits of a given form of energy, but merely placed the casualties in some sort of context. At the end of the day, each will use whatever comes available/affordable. Technology transfers may help reduce the overall environmental impact, but I see nothing to get too excited about in short and medium term. Energy is right near the other essential things we need for living.

    Reply
16. 

    jurvetson

    Mar 15, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    The new IFR/breeder reactors are pretty exciting (they burn a U238 duraflame log for 60 years, with 99% efficiency vs 1% for today’s U235 reactors. We can use current nuclear waste as the fuel).

    @vennettaj – funny, just last night, I was just reading about the refusenik farmers of Fukushima. They are doing science:

    "The pair came up with a simple solution: get the cows to eat the caesium-contaminated grass, and use bacteria to compost their waste and reduce its bulk. Cows, unlike humans, do not absorb caesium, and it is deposited in faeces, says Matsumura. "By doing this, the cows avoid the guillotine and we can get rid of contaminated grass without human involvement.

    Despite being urged to abandon his village, Ito was one of the farmers who refused to leave. Instead, he began to study the effect of radioisotopes on crops. He collected data from 17 rice paddy fields and vegetable patches in his area, which was designated a radioactivity hotspot. He claims that food grown in contaminated soil actually contained relatively low levels of caesium. The highest was just 101 becquerels per kilogram in sweet potatoes – five times below the government’s safety limit." (New Scientist, 3/9/12)

    Reply
17. 

    Happy Tinfoil Cat

    Mar 15, 2012 at 7:54 pm

    @-fCh-
    Why would you think the Chinese coal miners chose their profession?

    Reply
18. 

    scleroplex

    Mar 15, 2012 at 9:46 pm

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/health/policy/cdc-finances-nat...

    🙂

    Reply
19. 

    -fCh-

    Mar 16, 2012 at 5:20 am

    @belleville Because mining and slave labor don’t go well together. Why do you ask, is there something that makes you think the Chinese coal miners don’t choose their profession?

    Reply
20. 

    Happy Tinfoil Cat

    Mar 16, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    If you live in a coal mining town you pretty much have little choice. Getting residency in another area is difficult to do. You can go to another area without permission but your children would not be allowed in school, your employer would pay you significantly less when your residency card is invalid, etc. It’s pretty much the same as the illegal immigration problems the US has with Mexico. Of course people want a better life, but realistically, they have little choice. It’s a bit callous to say they chose their profession.

    Reply
21. 

    -fCh-

    Mar 16, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    @belleville I think I see part of your point, but am still far from being convinced.

    In the end, it’s relative, yet not making the reference point explicit doesn’t help. Going from here to there is never easy, we cannot be all doing the same thing, coal mining must be acknowledged as the best available alternative for all involved.

    Reply
22. 

    Happy Tinfoil Cat

    Mar 17, 2012 at 3:22 am

    Sounds like Terrapower should start renovating some of the old reactors to make them more profitable.

    Reply