In my previous post I mentioned how issues Trasportation & Infrastructure Energies need to be dealt with for green energy to be practical. In this post the issue of Waste & Recycling is addressed.
Waste & Recycling
This is the clearest area where the divide between intelligent, practical environmentalists, and intelligent, idealist environmentalists is greatest. To eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) uses of fossil fuels and the accompanying CO2 emissions, there is only one practical solution that still allows for the use of combustion engines: hydrogen power. The difficulty arises in that (in addition to infrastructure issues previously discussed) mass producing hydrogen gas from H2O is energy-ineffecient. In other words, electrolysis requires energy to undertake. All of the proposals by idealist environmentalists, off-shore wind farms; tide-based water-power generators; solar panels; natural gas, don’t provide enough energy to support our current demands, much less enough energy to waste splitting water. The best possible source that could accomplish both supplying current demands and enough extra energy to split water is nuclear power. Not just a few plants will do, rather we would have to build a multitude in the next 5 years. To avoid the N.I.M.B.Y. issue, the plants could be located on old off-shore oil rigs that are reinforced against attack. Civilian guard units, created and run by the state, could be tasked to provide constant security.
Assuming the plants utilize non-breeder reactors, the amount of nuclear waste is far less than the waste produced by coal or oil power plants. With enough extra cheap energy, we could mix the waste with iron-rich glass and bury it in the deepest parts of abandoned mines, or bundle the waste up and launch it into space (preferably on a collision course with the sun). Since we are already using the power to separate water, the hydrogen and oxygen for the rockets would be readily available.
Although I’m hopeful, it is not likely a massive drive to build nuclear reactors will be initiated in the next 5 years. The idealist environmentalists hold too much sway over the environmental lobby; they are expecting some miracle discovery that will solve the global warming and pollution problem while ignoring the interim alternatives that could pull America out of its oil addiction and cement us as a premier energy provider for the world.
Performing Arts on the Web cont.
Today’s Selections come from the later parts of a documentary on Sylvie Guillem.
Video Clip: Sylvie Guillem – Part 4
Video Clip: Sylvie Guillem – Part 5
Video Clip: Sylvie Guillem – Part 6
Video Clip: Sylvie Guillem – Part 7
Over the past few years, I have pondered what the best ways of chronicling performing arts are. Some documentarians focus on particular pieces or instillations of art. Other documentarians focus on the artists: choosing to isolate their focus on particular traits/characteristics of the artist or how the artist approaches his or her medium. The last major focus of still other documentarians is the performance art/artist in historical context: what does both the artist and the art indicate about the place and period the artist existed in; does the artist challenge, ignore, or support convention; what is the relationship between the particular artist and his/her art, and does that relationship help or hinder the presentation/acceptance of that art?
As I continue to post findings from my internet meanderances, I will (on occasion) comment on which of the above strategies the filmmaker chose, and my thoughts and that choice.
The Sylvie Guillem documentary seems to have focused on the second option: isolate focus on the artist and view how the artist approaches her medium. Without subtitled translation, I cannot parse exactly what the people said. Perhaps someone who understands French will translate for me someday. Regardless, both the nature of how the documentary was shot and the style of editing allow the former conclusion to be made.