Everyone in the energy field agrees that they should only be used as a stop-gap. The one advantage they have is they are a very concentrated point of power generation and don’t emit any CO2. Problem is what to do with the nasty stuff and b) building and running a nuclear power plant requires a certain level of carefulness and non-sloppiness that I don’t know Americans are interested in providing any more. (My own answer to the problem is: anyone who was involved in building a nuclear power plant or running it should live within 5 miles of it. If your own ass is grass when a problem occurs, you’re much more likely to insist on high levels of quality control.)

Problems with wind and solar: generation may or may not be steady (although a wind/solar combo might be pretty good at backing up each other), and getting the energy to where it is needed is a bitch. Distributed power generation is a great idea but we’re probably limited right now to some solar panels on roofs and potentially installing co-gen systems in places that get gas.

Best of course is improved efficiency in storing and using what we do have. Japan has been very good at developing energy-sipping technology–unfortunately, the Average American isn’t going to pay $2000 for a washing machine. And considering the problem we’ve been simply getting automobile mpg standards cranked up to something even near what Japanese and European mpg standards are, I’m not holding my breath.

The average american will continue to insist on his god-given right to cheap energy and cheap gas until the whole system comes to a total collapse. Given the mentality, I’m sure some of them think it’s written in the Bible somewhere.

Since “invading Burma” is not currently a serious option — on account of y’all no longer having a spare army with which to invade them — I imagine that Time and Newsweek are more concerned with salvaging the idea of humanitarian invasions as a concept. You know, “Invading Iraq did not work out well, but it should not discredit our good intentions, just because they were implemented poorly.”
The editorial staff are the turning the voices of a few hundred thousand dead Burmese into a chorus of approval for the concept of benign military intervention. Knowing how strongly Chris Hitchens despises this business of ventriloquising the dead, I eagerly await his acerbic condemnation.

The disaster in Burma presents the world with perhaps its most serious humanitarian crisis since the 2004 Asian tsunami. By most reliable estimates, close to 100,000 people are dead. Delays in delivering relief to the victims, the inaccessibility of the stricken areas and the poor state of Burma’s infrastructure and health systems mean that number is sure to rise. With as many as 1 million people still at risk, it is conceivable that the death toll will, within days, approach that of the entire number of civilians killed in the genocide in Darfur.
…
That’s why it’s time to consider a more serious option: invading Burma.

Talk about your non-sequitors.

Ok.

Now THAT’S funny…

mikey

In any case, it’s always a good idea to get your sex advice from a celibate guy in a dress and shiny red shoes.

http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2005/08/hamsterpowered.html

Cell phone charger powered by hamster wheel.

mikey

Thanks!

http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20050331-fun.asx

Harnessing the power of play…