73 Comments

1. Mike in Oregon:

“Okay, it was a gift. The movie as film was tenth-rate. But he did win.”

Face it, Roger. Algore could have won with a stickman cartoon. They just love him in Hollywood. The Oscars have become a joke. Right up there with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Feb 26, 2007 - 7:04 pm 2. chuck:

Perhaps Gore doesn’t even realize that his lifestyle appears extravagent. I have heard that he shared the occasional joint with the folks at The Farm when he worked for the Nashville Tennessean, but evidently the rural lifestyle didn’t stick. I suspect he just lives in the way that comes naturally a man of his stature and doesn’t bother to compare it to the life of the average American. At least the Roosevelts made a show of parsimony.

BTW, The Farm site is interesting, not least because they have a Hippie Museum. Heh. A high school friend of mine was one of the early members, leaving San Francisco with his girlfriend when Steve Gaskin moved the community to Tennessee. These sort of communities seem to work best when they have a religious center, and Steve provided that for these folks. The Farm reminds me a bit of the Oneida Community, including early experiments with a form of complex marriage.

Feb 26, 2007 - 7:42 pm 3. Anthony (Los Angeles):

A couple of years ago, Peter Schweizer wrote “Do as I say,” documenting the hypocrisy of left-liberal icons like the Clintons, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore. For the second edition, he may have to add a chapter on the Goracle.

Feb 26, 2007 - 8:03 pm 4. Luther McLeod:

I wish I had saved it, a comment I read recently, somewhere, about we being a nation of hypocrites. It wasn’t’ said in a particularly negative way, just a matter of fact way. I have always considered myself such. Hypocrite that is. My ideals and standards are way too extreme for me to practice to the letter. Odd thing that. I think we all live a somewhat double life, that which we desire and that which we can actually accomplish. I suppose it is that tension which makes life endurable. Otherwise we might never live beyond our teens. And then there are those, such as Al G., who never mature beyond that age. Always attempting to have others live the ideals that they cannot.

Ha, just read Chuck’s comment re the “Farm.” Haven’t thought of that and/or Gaskin in some time. Too bad Al didn’t stick there. Much less bother for everyone.

Feb 26, 2007 - 8:10 pm 5. Roger:

Luther, I don’t think we are a nation of hypocrites. Hypocrisy is an international phenomenon, although the French perhaps lead the way. It was Baudelaire, you will recall, who wrote “Hypocrite, lecteur…” etc.

Feb 26, 2007 - 8:13 pm 6. Luther McLeod:

Yes Roger, I could have used a broader brush, but just trying too stay on point you know And Voltaire, with whom I am more familiar, had a few things to say on the subject as well.

Feb 26, 2007 - 8:35 pm 7. ElMondo:

Best snark I read somewhere: Inconvenient Truth did indeed make history. It’s the first PowerPoint presentation to win an Oscar.

Anyway, on topic: Sure, Roger, you’re right. Gore is thoughtless, hypocritical even. But given all the enablers around him, what else would anyone expect? When everyone else is lavishing excessive, unwarranted praise for “telling the truth” and proclaiming him as some sort of prophet – as if climatologists have been keeping their research secret from everyone, and he was the only one who shed any light – anyone’s head is going to grow stupidly large. When the praise is endless and fueled by derangement syndromes burning for nearly a decade, nobody can stay even keeled. I mean, what everyone kept saying about him… jeez… I’ve seen less fellatio in a Ron Jeremy film. And this has obviously been going on for years now.

Sure, he put himself in that position. But my point is, that level of hypocrisy and narcissism isn’t achieved all on one’s own; he had plenty of help getting there.

Feb 26, 2007 - 9:00 pm 8. ic:

Meanwhile, “[Bush's] Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling.

Feb 26, 2007 - 9:55 pm 9. Dirty Dingus:

As I note at my blog, it does seem odd that there seems to be no use of renewable energy here. I also wonder curiously why the new John Edwards mansion appears not to have any solar panels or other renewable energy either….

Feb 27, 2007 - 1:09 am 10. Terrye:

People like Gore live by the do as I say not as I do standard.

Yes, it will be an embarassment for Gore and maybe for the Democrats who think he can make a comeback.

All I know is that I missed the Oscars. I used to love them. And now it seems that DiCaprio is one more actor whose films I will make a point of not watching.

My brother is building a new house, it is not large..only about 1100 square feet and very efficient. He builds houses for a living and he thinks these monstrous houses are ridiculous. But that is what some people want. Perhaps folks like Gore will be shamed into either living more conservatively or shutting the hell up…but I doubt it. They are beyond shame.

Dafydd over at Big Lizards thinks Gore will get the nomination. Perish the thought.

Feb 27, 2007 - 2:53 am 11. jdwill:

What I am suffering cognitive dissonance from is that even though I think the science is weak and sloppy, and Al Gore is, well, strange, I find I that must get behind the green effort. Why? Because there is a fair chance that CO2 warming could be a serious problem and going to ethanol hits several problems at once.

1. Carbon neutral in that what you burn/emit is what the previous growing season took out.
2. Peak Oil and higher petro-chemical prices is more than likely – and we need the complex hydro-carbons for so much more that heat
3. It reduces the funding to those who clearly made the current Islamofacist mess by spreading the Wahabbi doctrine world wide – and it may help free their masses from ‘the curse of oil’
4. It stimulates agr-business here at home

The only negative, short term, is that food prices are being driven up and hurting those further down the development ladder.

BTW – the science of AGW is weakest on understanding clouds, how they get generated, and how much they impact climate. But, even if clouds wind up screwing over the apocalyptic dreams of Al, he may have done us a great service.

This song has been running thru my head for days:

I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow,
It’s cloud illusions I recall,
I really don’t know clouds, at all.

Joni Mitchell – Both Sides Now

Feb 27, 2007 - 5:01 am 12. kpom:

But, but, Al Gore has bought carbon offsets! (Which, as a number of people have noted, is the modern equivalent of buying indulgences – where is Martin Luther when you need him?)

What the new era means is that if you are rich enough, you can have the gigantic mansion, use private jets (after making your pilots sign nondisclosure agreements so they don’t discuss who they’re carrying), and its all OK, so long as you buy the carbon indulgences.

If you have to scrape togther money for a ticket on Southwest, you are harming the planet and shouldn’t go.

Feb 27, 2007 - 5:38 am 13. Jack Tanner:

Al Gore must be pretty embarrassed this evening seeing the headline at the top of the Drudge Report: POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’.

What’re you crazy? Embarrased about what? Sacrificing is for little people not the true President. You just tell some BS lies when you’re Al-ee G.

Feb 27, 2007 - 5:44 am 14. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Where on earth did they get this information? I didn’t know utility bills were a matter of public record. Or did someone just sneak by and read the meter?

Feb 27, 2007 - 7:16 am 15. TomTom:

Gore claims he’s buying carbon offsets, but where’s the proof?
The market for carbon offsets is for much bigger players, e.g. utilities, than for even Gore as an energy hog. I’m inclined, as always, to doubt the veracity of his claim.

Feb 27, 2007 - 7:44 am 16. Buddy Larsen:

I was struck why the Children of the Corn expressions on the faces when the camera panned Gore’s audience at the Oscars. I guess good looks and good branes don’t correlate so good.

Feb 27, 2007 - 8:15 am 17. Buddy Larsen:

“In the long run, I suspect that doesn’t augur well for the environment” says Roger. That’s so true. Most folks already try not to splurge their energy costs–it’s part of ordinary thriftiness. Big vehicles are for safety, in my experience. Nobody likes a big electric bill, never have. So, on the personal-behavior level–to skip for a moment Gore’s ‘one-world’ statist machinations–what result will he have? His nagging makes me want to go outside and burn old truck tires.

Feb 27, 2007 - 8:22 am 18. ray_g:

“In the movie business you see a lot of that, a kind of narcissistic politics in which how you appear is so much more important than what you really are”

Didn’t someone once say that politics was show business for unattractive people?

Feb 27, 2007 - 8:32 am 19. tim maguire:

He can’t catch a break the day after he wins an Oscar. (Okay, it was a gift. The movie as film was tenth-rate. But he did win.)

That’s just because Hollywood has no respect for the documentary.

The Best Documentary award was never anything more than an opportunity for Oscar voters to feel intelligent. They don’t care about the genre and, with Michael Moore, they finally found a use for it–to reward people who reinforce their own high opinion of themselves by telling them they are right about this or that contentious issue.

Gore won the award the same way Michael Moore did–by shamelessly feeding the beast.

Feb 27, 2007 - 8:37 am 20. Larry J:

A single one-way coast-to-coast trip on a Gulfstream V jet will burn several thousand gallons of fuel. That’s far more than the average family will use in a year of driving even if their vehicles of choice are Hummer H-1s. Just one of Gore’s houses uses 20 times the utilities of an average family. And he has the gaul to lecture all of us on the need to save energy and protect the environment.

To cover himself, he claims to buy “carbon offsets” and that he’s paying more so his utilities come from renewable resources. What a crock. Energy consumed is energy consumed. He’s acting like a glutton who, following a feeding frenzy at the local buffet, gives a homeless man a dollar. Others have compared the “carbon offsets” to the ancient and vilified practice of selling indulgences. It’s a good comparison. While Gore is telling us to go sin no more, he’s environmentally sinning all he wants and making payoffs to ease his conscience.

Feb 27, 2007 - 8:55 am 21. raf:

jdwill:

You are neglecting to account for the petroleum products that are consumed in the processing of corn into ethanol.

Feb 27, 2007 - 9:48 am 22. Hermie:

Exactly who does Gore ‘buy’ these ‘carbon credits’ from? How did they become the sole authority on who gets ‘credits’? Were they given the contract to be the ‘carbon credit bank’ by the UN; the Kyoto signers?

It seems that whoever he gets ‘carbon credits’ from is just another unelected and unaccountable, far-left organization using its ‘moral authority’ by laundering money for political activities.

Feb 27, 2007 - 9:49 am 23. dclydew:

I seem constantly surprised to see people surprised by Political (or Hollywood) hypocrisy. Most of these ‘leaders’ are interested in me or you or any American that isn’t them… or at least isn’t key to their survival (political donations etc). Be it green footprints, underage teens, graft, dollar bills in the freezer, golf outings, or even campaign finance reform, we have a government filled with hypocrites. Hell, there are presidential candidates who voted for McCain-Feingold and yet, now that they’re running… have opted for other finance.

Democrats that aren’t interested in making a more liberal world… hypocrites. Republicans that are interested in growing the federal government… hypocrites. We are filled with hypocrites, and Al Gore, I think, may be no more or less than any of the others. Maybe it is unavoidable for a government to be somewhat free of hypocrisy, but crying about hypocrisy here and then voting for a hypocrite come November seems, well, hypocritical.

Feb 27, 2007 - 9:57 am 24. dclydew:

raf:

jdwill:

You are neglecting to account for the petroleum products that are consumed in the processing of corn into ethanol.

They can be run on Bio-Diesel which is much more feasible. Better yet, if we replaced corn with a different crop (hemp or sawgrass, for example) even gasoline powered farm equipment can provide us with a net positive. Optional energy, particularly ethanol and bio-diesel, appear quite workable at this point.

Feb 27, 2007 - 10:02 am 25. dclydew:

Maybe it is unavoidable for a government to be somewhat free of hypocrisy

err, impossible, rather than unavoidable.

Sorry.

Feb 27, 2007 - 10:08 am 26. Occam's Beard:

dclydew, I believe JD’s point was that ethanol needs to be distilled from the fermented corn or whatever. Bearing in mind that fermentation ceases when the alcohol concentration is less than 10% by volume (cf. beer), and that aqueous ethanol won’t burn unless concentrated to over 50% by volume, producing ethanol for fuel entails boiling off a lot of water – and that is extremely energy intensive.

So ethanol can be used as a fuel, it just doesn’t net us much in the way of energy.

And Roger, there’s no point to buying a Prius to stick it to the Saudis. The only difference would be that the power plant powers your car by buying and burning petroleum instead of you doing so yourself.

Feb 27, 2007 - 10:26 am 27. jdwill:

Occam’s Beard,

Isn’t Brazil making an economic go of ethanol?

I am making some broad assumptions

1. Initially, political will trumps ecomomic bottom line
2. Technology improves to meet challenge
3. ???

Better than the South Park business model, anyway, because the question marks are not in the middle.

I don’t have all the technical answers, but I see the bind as:

a. Current oil consumption intersects us with unstable regions and growing Chinese and Indian demand.
b. USA doesn’t have the desire to enforce a world empire and have its troops in some kind of fighting somewhere/forever.
c. Peak Oil is real, and what happens to ecology when we start cooking Canadian tar sands or Rocky Mountain shale for oil?
d. Nuclear is an effective option, but what about waste?

So, we should find a way to make bio-fuels work. And work on wind and solar as well.

Feb 27, 2007 - 10:48 am 28. Occam's Beard:

Isn’t Brazil making an economic go of ethanol?

Nope. I’ve read that they’re breaking even on ethanol; offshore oil wells are doing the heavy lifting. Sorry, don’t have a link, but it was a pretty credible source.

political will trumps ecomomic bottom line

Alas, thermodynamics trumps both.

And work on wind and solar as well.

Wind and solar energy are nice, but are the energetic equivalent of topping up your income by selling aluminum cans to the recycling center. A step in the right direction, but a very small one. The problem with both of them is that they both have such low power densities.

Feb 27, 2007 - 11:19 am 29. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

occam’s beard..”there’s no point to buying a Prius to stick it to the Saudis. The only difference would be that the power plant powers your car by buying and burning petroleum instead of you doing so yourself.”

Actually, very little electricity is produced using oil. Most power plants are coal-fired or natural-gas-fired, with the remainder being nuclear or hydro. If battery technology can be developed to the point at which a substantial amount of transportation energy is drawn from electricity, then we are in a much more fleibile situation regarding fuel sources.

Hybrids also save energy by capturing the energy in braking, rather than dissipating it as heat.

Feb 27, 2007 - 11:26 am 30. dclydew:

dclydew, I believe JD’s point was that ethanol needs to be distilled from the fermented corn or whatever. Bearing in mind that fermentation ceases when the alcohol concentration is less than 10% by volume (cf. beer), and that aqueous ethanol won’t burn unless concentrated to over 50% by volume, producing ethanol for fuel entails boiling off a lot of water – and that is extremely energy intensive.

Well, thats good for basics. However, we have multiple variables here which can modify our final outcome.

For example, corn may be the absolute worst option for ethanol. It requires more field work (tractors, pesticide, fertilizer) and produces less sugars and fibers than many of the other options (see hemp/sawgrass). Your numbers on fermentation are pretty close and good for simple yests (like brewers), other yeasts, however, can live at much better ratios. For example, Sam Adams has actually produced a beer that’s 50 proof (or 25% alcohol concentration).

The comments on solar and wind also are correct in the basics, but don’t account for a number of advances made in the past 5 to 10 years.

Alternative fuel options need to be considered for the location and application. If we succeed in weaning ourselves from heavy oil dependency, it will probably mean that choosing a fuel source will become a large variable in projects. We will probably lose the hemogeny of a national standard for all. In some areas, residential buildings could be sustained completely with Solar energy. In other areas, the same problem might better be solved with Wind or Bio-Deisel or Ethanol. It will depend greatly on the application, the location and the state of development for that energy type. It may also depend on government regulation. Hemp, for example, would far outperform corn as an energy crop, but due to a confused federal government, we can’t legally grow it here in the states.

There are viable options now. As technology improves, we see even better solutions. None that break the laws of thermodynamics, I think… and possibly none as easy to use as oil and other fossil fuels… but there are real options on the market today and better options actively working in labs around the world.

You may not need a razor, but a little trim with the clippers might be useful.

Feb 27, 2007 - 11:56 am 31. jdwill:

One question: Assuming the efficiencies can be worked out, do we run into water supply as a constraint for bio-fuel production?

I have lived in the west before, and am aware that several western states have a tight water supply. I would be hoping that genetic engineering would help with this.

Feb 27, 2007 - 1:10 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:

Water-use is one place that retail conservation could make a huge difference. Most folks could cut their use in half and still be just fine.

Feb 27, 2007 - 1:27 pm 33. Buddy Larsen:

…so long as “Stinky” don’t bother you as a nickname.

Feb 27, 2007 - 1:57 pm 34. dclydew:

Assuming the efficiencies can be worked out, do we run into water supply as a constraint for bio-fuel production?

It could… particularly since recent studies indicate that some parts of the west may be seeing a drought cycle again. However, there are some possible options that would help with this. One would be finding crops that require less water than Corn or Soybeans. Both Hemp and Sawgrass fit the bill. They also don’t have as stringent requirements on soil or care (pesticides/fertilization etc).

It would probably require serious retooling of some parts of the corn belt (equipment etc), but its not impossible. Both of those crops also produce a better ratio of usable fuel in the end than either corn or soy (though soy comes a lot closer). Also, depending on the crop choice, there are other potential growing areas (Ohio, California and West Virgina already have huge illegal cash crops of Marijuana, those same fields could be producing hemp instead).

I think proponents of alternative energy often have rose colored glasses perched on their busybody noses. The naysayers often tend to have blinders… from my research, I think its possible but would require serious changes in our society, in our farms and an understanding that there’s no single magic solution that will work for everyone. Rather there are lots of solutions that will work together.

In the end, the success or failure of alternative energy will likely come down to how many Americans are willing to realistically look at the issue, without the baggage from their particular political position.

Feb 27, 2007 - 2:34 pm 35. chuck:

In the end, the success or failure of alternative energy will likely come down to how many Americans are willing to realistically look at the issue

Isn’t that what cost and markets are all about? And I don’t mean carbon credits, which as far as I can tell are a version of monopoly money pushed by Enron, among others. In fact, IIRC, the value of carbon credits has recently declined by about 95%, reflecting their true worth.

Anyway, nothing lasts for ever, the question is how best to make the transition and the allocation of resources that goes along with it. At the moment there are artificial constraints in this regard: the long term legal problems of nuclear power, restricting offshore drilling, and so on. I think proposed solutions like ethanol and wind power are at best niche technologies and uneconomic, they only look good with government subsidies. Such subsidies might be justified if energy independence is of overriding concern, but even then I would argue that nuclear power would be a better option.

Feb 27, 2007 - 3:14 pm 36. Buddy Larsen:

Does anybody actually understand the dimensions of the nuclear waste problem? I don’t. I suspect it is hugely over-hyped. I’m by golly gonna do a search one of these days.

Feb 27, 2007 - 3:48 pm 37. jdwill:

dclydew, etal.,

Thanks for the informed responses.

Feb 27, 2007 - 4:13 pm 38. fred:

I would note a recent NY Sun story (opening paragraphs and link below)on fast rising, ethanol related, prices for farmland — North to South America — increases that will be naturally reflected in price of ethanol. The economic case for ethanol is marginal at best.

There is an enormous amount of oil in shale in the Rockies (some estimates have it as more than in Saudi Arabia). In the late ’60s, the stories went as follows: if the price of oil goes up to $10 a barrel, extracting oil from shale will become economic; then, when $10 a barrel oil arrived, it became economic at $18 a barrel. Well, it’s still not economic at $60, simply because the cost of extraction continued to rise with higher crude oil prices. And so will it likely be with ethanol.

NY Sun 2/23/07
Farmland from Iowa to Argentina is rising faster in price than apartments in Manhattan and London for the first time in 30 years.

Demand for corn used in ethanol increased the value of crop land 16% in Indiana and 35% in Idaho in 2006, as average American farm prices increased by 15% last year, according to government data. The value of New York State farmland increased about 7%, according to the department of agriculture. The price of a SoHo loft appreciated only 12%, while a pied-a-terre near London’s financial district gained 11%, according to realtors.

Feb 27, 2007 - 6:20 pm 39. fred:

This is the link mentioned, but omitted, from my comments above.

http://www.nysun.com/article/48972

Feb 27, 2007 - 6:24 pm 40. Barrett:

Al Gore has bought carbon offsets!

There is another layer of hypocrisy that no one has commented on in addition to his many homes, his lavish consumption of energy, his use of private jets and so on.

Carbon offsets are nothing more than buying the right to pollute. Companies can trade such environmental credits. Many environmentalists scream at the practice saying all should comply versus all should comply in the aggregate.

I wonder why the enviro-police have given Big Al a pass here too.

Al defines hypocrisy. But because he “cares” (and the Dr. Feelgood camp cheers), it’s okay.

Al may have a soft heat, but he also has a soft head. The more I study the science, the more I realize why the global warming debate has become politicized.

It’s just another way for the left to advance their agenda and call people who disagree anti-itellectual or stupid to browbeat them into submission.

That way you don’t have to deal with the “inconvenient facts”!

Feb 27, 2007 - 9:25 pm 41. Neo:

Others have compared the “carbon offsets” to the ancient and vilified practice of selling indulgences. It’s a good comparison.

Martin Luther took the Roman Church to task in what is one of the most noteable examples of “Speaking Truth to Power.”

Feb 27, 2007 - 9:59 pm 42. David:

I wrote this to another blog but this is what “carbon offsets” are all about,paying a wergild and adding CO2, guilt free.

I was reading various blogs, I read the following very interesting comment following this link.

Feb 28, 2007 - 1:12 am 43. David:

Dear tom-tom. Al gore expends thousands of kilotons of carbon. He is an industrial player.

Feb 28, 2007 - 1:18 am 44. Rhod:

Buddy:

An engineer here in CT who worked at the now decommissioned CT Yankee Nuke Plant told me (about fifteen years ago) that all nuclear waste, worldwide, would cover the area of a football field, three-feet deep. I feel much better. Or do I?

Feb 28, 2007 - 3:19 am 45. moneyrunner:

The issue of carbon offsets is very misunderstood and a potential horror for much of the “developing” world. Here are some thought on how this could lead to the de-facto re-emegence of sumptuary laws and the end of progress for many in the developing world.

Feb 28, 2007 - 4:50 am 46. Curly Smith:

dclydew : Sam Adams has actually produced a beer that’s 50 proof (or 25% alcohol concentration).
The comments on solar and wind also are correct in the basics, but don’t account for a number of advances made in the past 5 to 10 years.

FWIW, researchers were working to develop a yeast that can live in a 50% alcohol environment. Such a yeast would be a boon to ethanol manufacturing since the more Mother Nature does the less we have to do. However, as with wind and solar, government subsidies of inefficient technology “lock-in” that technology and stop all future development. You should note that the recent advances in wind and solar came after the subsidies were canceled, requiring those technologies to actually compete with fossil fuels. Wind and solar are still not cost competitive but they were making progress, at least until government mandates for usage and calls for subsidies stepped in.

Feb 28, 2007 - 5:48 am 47. ricpic:

No reason Al Gore shouldn’t be a model eco-citizen.

He has his own unlimited power source: whale oil.

Feb 28, 2007 - 7:12 am 48. Buddy Larsen:

Yes, he needs to think about becoming global grocery-neutral –he has more chins than a Chinese telephone directory.

Feb 28, 2007 - 8:13 am 49. Buddy Larsen:

Nice work @ moneyrunner’s blog–

Feb 28, 2007 - 8:17 am 50. dclydew:

You should note that the recent advances in wind and solar came after the subsidies were canceled, requiring those technologies to actually compete with fossil fuels. Wind and solar are still not cost competitive but they were making progress, at least until government mandates for usage and calls for subsidies stepped in.

I couldn’t agree more. I don’t think the government should be subsidizing research in stem cell, fuel cell, or much of anything else. I would far prefer that they stick to interstate commerce and national defense. The free market and human ingenuity seem far more likely to provide valuable solutions than groups that spend 80% of their time looking for more funding. A number of advances in used cooking oil as Bio-Diesel came from the private sector and garages across America

I wouldn’t mind seeing the government give tax breaks to companies that are working on alternative fuels. I also wouldn’t mind seeing the government hold a contest with some cash prize for the first group to provide some real solution (based on whatever criteria). In that sense, the government seems useful… but subsides rarely seem to work.

Feb 28, 2007 - 8:40 am 51. fred:

In discussing Gore’s inconvenient hypocrisy, The WSJ’s Best of the Web (2/27) has this wonderful item:

Not every wealthy politician lives in a vast private mansion, and TreeHugger.com reports on one who lives more simply:

Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in “discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.”

Feb 28, 2007 - 11:47 am 52. Buddy Larsen:

Why, Al wouldn’t make his butlers or footmen live in such a dinky place.

Feb 28, 2007 - 12:37 pm 53. stu:

The nuclear power plant in northern Virginia which has been in operation for over 25 years has an area occupying less than 2500 square feet housing the spent fuel rods used during that period. They have storage area on-site for at least another 200 years of operation. It is also my understanding that these rods can be reprocessed and used again. If we can get by the zealots, perhaps we can start building more of these non-polluting plants, which would have more of an impact on the use of carbon based fuels than all of the rest combined.

Feb 28, 2007 - 12:45 pm 54. dclydew:

Is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green?

One of the reasons I liked GWB in 2000 was because his record in Crawford indicated that he had a clue about responsible living, sustainable housing and he was “a good steward of the land”. If more of the folks bemoaning “global warming” would act half as responsible, we might get somewhere.

Unfortunately, like most folks with an authoritarian bent, they don’t want to change themselves, rather they want the government to force change on everyone.

Ick.

Feb 28, 2007 - 1:03 pm 55. Buddy Larsen:

Stu, that’s pretty mind-boggling–how little impact nuclear waste actually has.

Feb 28, 2007 - 1:54 pm 56. Buddy Larsen:

The zealots give the general impression that it’s, oh, seven million times worse.

Feb 28, 2007 - 1:56 pm 57. Luther McLeod:

Well Buddy it isn’t the size that matters ya know. Just the mere thought of all that waste laying around is what gives the anti-nukers shivers. BTW, folks from over there say hi.

Feb 28, 2007 - 2:23 pm 58. ElMondo:

Well, to be fair, Buddy, the biggest worry is about the length of time radioactive waste stays potently radioactive, which is on the order of thousands (Plutonium 239, roughly 6 thousand) to tens of thousands (Pu-240, over 20,000) of years. Or even much longer (Uranium 235 half life is measured in millions of millenia (roughly 10^9 years); it’s decay to non-potent levels or radioactive emissions would be even longer). And aside from radioactivity, there’s toxicity issues with the waste. And the heat disintergration of the storage material is not something to be taken lightly.

But in all other aspects, yes, the problems are overstated. I don’t want to make an equal mistake in the opposite direction by understating those problems – they’re real, and they’re significant, but frankly, the hysteria over the subject has made things seem far worse than they really are. The problems can be dealt with. Not easily, but with effort, they can be handled. Nuclear power is a damn good idea, too good to where it’s stupid that this country isn’t pursuing it further.

Feb 28, 2007 - 3:09 pm 59. ElMondo:

Whoops… thousands of millenia. Not millions. A billion is a thousand million.

My fault.

Feb 28, 2007 - 3:11 pm 60. Buddy Larsen:

Dammit, el mondo, how can I plan when all of a sudden it’s only ‘thousands’ of millenia?

But seriously, I understand the stuff is nasty forever–but the point that I suspect many are missing (thru MSM failure) pertains to the miniscule volumes involved.

Sure, USA will have to isolate and sequester some real estate. But how much, in return for what gain? The cost/benefit ratio needs some airing.

Feb 28, 2007 - 3:32 pm 61. Bostonian:

On the subj. of nuclear waste, I’ll just point out something that is not said often enough:

The radioactivity of a substance is inversely proportional to its half-life.

Stuff that is radioactive a long time (like plutonium) emits less radiation than things that burn up quickly (strontium).

So the half-life of something is not really a good measure of how “bad” it is–rather the opposite.

A better measure of danger is how much shielding is needed (now) to prevent harm to living things. Pu emits alpha particles, which can be stopped with a sheet of paper. It’ll do this for a long, long time, but I repeat: a sheet of paper.

Feb 28, 2007 - 6:07 pm 62. Luther McLeod:

Bostonian, thank you. Though I lack formal education, your information, if correct, indicates my true lack of depth. OTH, why has SciAm not pointed out that simple fact too me in the last 30 years? Your “not said often enough” I would interpret as never and it should be repeated often.

Feb 28, 2007 - 6:36 pm 63. Buddy Larsen:

That’s just the alphas tho –the gammas’ll bake yer ass good sans a lead suit.

Feb 28, 2007 - 8:37 pm 64. ElMondo:

Buddy, I agree with you on that. The cost/benefit ratio does need a serious airing. Rational folks would find that, despite the serious costs, there are some very weighty benefits.

Bostonian-

Yes, that’s true. It doesn’t take much shielding; back in the 50’s Queen Elizabeth was supposedly handed a chunk in a plastic bag in order to show her how warm it was, and to the best of everyone’s knowledge (assuming the story is true) she’s suffered no ill effects. But, labs everywhere do keep bringing up the inhalation danger, and I consistently see it listed as an issue in literature. On this, I’m trusting the experts caution about it’s danger. So you’re right about the blocking of alpha particles, but researchers still handle the stuff carefully.

Feb 28, 2007 - 9:27 pm 65. Always right:

Not just the physical shielding should be considered. It depends on how well you can “isolate” the waste. In other words, nothing is ever 100% proof.

Once the radioactives get incorporated into biological systems (i.e., taken up by plants, food chain, etc.) the long half-life also come into play.

Having said that, the benefits still outweighs the risk, imo.

Mar 1, 2007 - 11:22 am 66. Bostonian:

No, you should not be careless with any of these radioactive substances.

I bring up the shielding issue because radiation was turned into a bogeyman where the public no longer has any true grasp of what’s involved, no grasp of any of the trade-offs.

I see others here have brought up the point of volume–the incredibly (comparatively) tiny amount of radioactive waste produced by nuclear plants. This point should also be factored into issues of containment. Again this is something the public has no clue of. Discussion was effectively shut down for so many years.

And how many people realize that coal waste is radioactive (at a low level, to be sure)? How many people have an idea of the volume of THAT waste? When CA refused to use its nukes and instead bought power from out-of-state coal plants, how many people were aware of the adverse net environmental effect?!

***
Plutonium was for a while described as the “most toxic substance known to man.” The late Petr Beckmann had a standing challenge that he would ingest an amount plutonium if someone else would ingest an equal amount by weight of any poison. Funnily, nobody took him up on it.

He is also the author of a wonderful book called the Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.

I really miss that guy.

Mar 1, 2007 - 12:55 pm 67. Bostonian:

In the interests of arming people with facts, I refer all to the wikipedia article on radioactive decay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

See the last paragraph in the “decay timing” section: “This relationship between the half-life and the decay constant shows that highly radioactive substances are quickly spent, while those that radiate weakly endure longer.”

Mar 1, 2007 - 1:05 pm 68. fred:

More Gore hypocrisy via today’s Best of the Web, first posting:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730

which reports that Al Gore buys his carbon offsets via a company — Generation Investment Management — of which he is Chairman.

The other interesting item of the day is the report that, according to SEC filings, during the fourth quarter of 2006, the Soros Fund purchased 1.9 million shares of (drum roll) Halliburton.

Mar 1, 2007 - 1:26 pm 69. Jonathan Bailey:

A few people here have asked where Big Al is buying his carbon off-sets. It seems he’s acutally buying them from himself: http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350. He is the co-founder and current chairman of the company. He isn’t buying offsets, he’s buying stock.

Mar 1, 2007 - 3:38 pm 70. Buddy Larsen:

So Al buys his credits from himself ?

I like that notion–”the health hazards of not going nuclear”.

Mar 1, 2007 - 3:42 pm 71. Buddy Larsen:

“Memo: Thurs, flew NY to California, took change out of left pocket and put in right pocket, now clear for press questions”

Mar 1, 2007 - 3:47 pm 72. pst314:

Given Gore’s penchant for sanctimony, demagoguery and bullying, he deserves all the mockery that can be thrown at him.

Nontheless, I have no problem with emissions trading per se, as it uses the free market to reduce pollution in a more efficient way.

Mar 2, 2007 - 8:10 am 73. Neo:

And here a new idea for a welcome counter-balance to global warming
: regional nuclear war.

Seems the climate models used for determining “Global Warming” can predict the level of “nuclear winter” from a nuclear exchange.

Looks like it might be possible to nuke the hell out Iran and solve “Global Warming” simultaneously. Who knew?

This sounds like the initial idea for a (TV) movie. Imagine a lottery to see which country or state gets “nuked” as a sacrifice to Global Warming.

Mar 4, 2007 - 1:09 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: