| ...does Virgin fly to Russia? |
[Nov. 19th, 2005|08:20 am] |
OK, i applaud the baby step, sure, yay. But if you think that's going to shut me up you got another thing coming. Did you know that they have been flying hydrogen powered airliners since 1988? Didn't think so....
As everyone is pretty much aware, Virgin mega-man, Sir Richard Branson, has announced that he's now dedicated to flying his Virgin planes on "Green Fuels." The fuel of choice is cellulose ethanol, very similar to regular fuel, not many changes needed to the engine, made from agricultural waste, blah blah blah...
ok and we need cheerleaders, of course, because if you don't cheer the baby when he takes a step, he may not take another one... but you know what? That's not my job. Ethanol is one of the most useless alternative fuels there is. Aside from one experimental technology, almost all ethanol used today is made through a process that works like this: for every 1 unit of energy spent, you get 1.1 units back. It uses so much energy to make the stuff that in the end you have just offset your emissions to other places. To add insult in injury, Brazil likes ethanol so much that they will let you replace some rainforest with sugar plantations just to make the fuel (and hopefully sell it on the global market).
We know better. when someone tells us that their new technology is "100% environmental," that that is just PR. What is 100% environmental? EVs with lead-acid batteries? Recycling (which placates mad consumption as well as being another energy-hog)? Solar Panels (with all the chlorine wasted and incredible energy demands)? really there are things that are better for the environment, but everything has a cost, and there is no such thing as 100%. Unless you are in the PR industry.
But I do want to congratulate him. Baby took a nice step (remember there is no Virgin plane flying on ethanol even, just a dedication to make it happen). But if I had a way to get him to see what's really going on, I would go on one of those fancy Virgin planes with him to Russia.
See since April 15 1988, they have been flying these babies in Russia:
this is the Tupolev TU155. It is one of the many cryogenic and/or straight hydrogen airliners. They have worked on these from 1988-2002 (what happened after that? i don't know). Tupolev has documented their success (and no hindenbergs, thank you very much), and they prove how easy and safe it is. Sure, Hydrogen can be made clean or dirty, so it still depends on where and how the H is made... but there are so many clean ways to make hydrogen that that issue is almost moot. So Mr. Bransen, if you really wanna impress the pants off us, you might want to go check out some real alternatives. |
|
|
| Gamma's on a roll.... |
[Nov. 19th, 2005|08:56 am] |
well, we're now watching Tropical Storm Gamma turn into Hurricane Gamma. while they like to say that it's the 24th storm this hurricane season, it's misleading, as before Gamma got it's name, it was called "TD 27" Or the 27th tropical depression. Again I hope that it doesn't wreak too much havoc, as they say, (after it's stay in Honduras and Belilze) it will descend upon Floridians once more...
Now, with 27 storms, you may want to look at this whole "climate debate." Is frequency increasing? Is size and or packed-energy increasing? Well two tools for you if you are so inclined: 1) Oxford University just launched their new site: "The Basics of Climate Prediction" for all you junior climate sleuths, they offer free software to help with your predictions (of course if you've been reading this for a while and already have your decoder ring, you also already have your own desktop General Circulation Model, right?)
2) The other goodie I have for you is a little scary. And its already out-dated, but it's a movie from NASA (always fun!). It's the 2005 Hurricane season at a glance (well upto wilma, no greeks). It's only about a minute and a half long, but gives you a great idea about whats going on in the tropics.... check it out here |
|
|
| Is "balanced" really "fair" to anyone? |
[Nov. 19th, 2005|09:59 am] |
re-thinking the standard journalistic framework
Great article today in RealClimate; I urge everyone who wants to be informed to go over there and read it! They take umbrage on the countless journalists that try to cover the Climate Change issue in a fair and balanced way --they usually end up interviewing one of the thousands of actual scientists, before being balanced and going to ask Fred Linson, Patrick Michaels or another of the (quickly disappearing) Fossil Fuel Rim-Jobbers out there to get the other side of the store (the "don't worry be happy side"). So RC said enough is enough. And I quote:
There are only a handful of "contrarian" climate scientists who continue to dispute that consensus. To give these contrarians equal time or space in public discourse on climate change out of a sense of need for journalistic "balance" is as indefensible as, say, granting the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite. It's plainly inappropriate. But it stubbornly persists nonetheless
They then site an example of how things out to be covered. They link to this op-ed piece by Mark Trahant of the Seattle Post Intellignecer, who finally decides that "Fairness, or journalist balance, is the obstacle. It's time for journalists -- and especially those of us who write opinion -- to declare outright that truth is a higher calling than fairness..... ...It's a call to make certain we never have to look back and explain to the next generation why we ignored the overwhelming evidence. The highest journalism value must be truth. But fairness will be served, too, especially when that means being fair to our children." Amen. |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
scalarparty's journal