Way to go, Portugal!

Once again, Portugal puts itself on the front end of progress (first it was their drug legalization program circa, what, 2001? And now with renewable energy)...

Portugal Gets A Clean-Energy Makeover

[A]ggressive national policies to accelerate renewable energy use are succeeding in Portugal and some other countries, according to a recent report by IHS Emerging Energy Research of Cambridge, Mass., a leading energy consulting firm. By 2025, the report projected, Ireland, Denmark and Britain will also get 40 percent or more of their electricity from renewable sources; if power from large-scale hydroelectric dams, an older type of renewable energy, is included, countries like Canada and Brazil join the list.

The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind at 16 percent (or just over 20 percent, including hydroelectric power), according to IHS. 

Obama's plan has the US getting 20-25 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025. Weak. Portugal went from getting 17 percent to 45 percent of its power from renewable sources in 5 years.

At some point, there will be head-scratching here at home, as we watch the rest of the world move forward on this, and we continue to belch about how it can't be done, it's unrealistic, blah blah blah -- the usual propaganda of assimilation lines we hear. At some point, even here, the critical mass will be achieved, right?

If the United States is to catch up to countries like Portugal, energy experts say, it must overcome obstacles like a fragmented, outdated energy grid poorly suited to renewable energy; a historic reliance on plentiful and cheap supplies of fossil fuels, especially coal; powerful oil and coal industries that often oppose incentives for renewable development; and energy policy that is heavily influenced by individual states.

Indeed, the powerful lobbies are likely to be the biggest obstacle, as it's probably always been, once Big Oil and Big Coal got in the driver's seat on our country's energy policy.

Happy 65th Birthday, Little Boy.

We're all still in the shadow of that first blast.  There are nearly 23,000 nuclear weapons out there these days. It's probably only a matter of time before another of these goes off, likely by a nonstate entity. Or perhaps tactical nukes used by a state against another state. Either way, it's going to be ugly. And more nations are still wanting to join the nuclear club, which only increases the likelihood of something happening.

China Syndrome

I was reading in Businessweek about how the US is screwing the pooch where alternative energies are concerned ("America Sits Out the Race," August 2-August 8, 2010). It's actually been something that keeps popping up in that magazine, one way or another. China has been racing ahead with it, with something like $35 billion invested in alternative energies in 2009. This easily more than double what the US has done. The most frustrating thing about it is that there is a vital market here just waiting to be tapped, and the US's captivity to Big Oil and Big Coal on energy policy is keeping us out of it. Now, maybe it'll be a "panic button" kind of thing ala Sputnik, where the US will be made acutely aware of how behind it is on this (and the likely $100+ barrels of oil will eventually help grease those wheels), and the US will suddenly get serious on this issue. Maybe. But meantime, China's marching steadily onward on it. Now, I'm not one of those scaredy-cats where China is concerned. Our media likes to demonize China, and I'm not that way. They are, however, making the right decisions where alternative energy is concerned, and our country simply isn't.

Power Games

Saw this curious article in the Chicago READER today.

While who knows if or whether this guy's invention would work, the real roadblock to alternative energy revolves around centralization of energy resources. That's the irony of it all -- Democrat or Republican, control of power is the main sticking point, where moving forward is concerned. Because many of the alternative energy resources (particularly wind and solar) allow at least the potential for decentralization of the power grid. The "virtue" of existing fuels is control of supply -- whether oil or natural gas or coal (or even "alternatives" like oil shales and ethanol) -- you have a company controlling the supply of the energy source. That plays handily into the cartel model of energy production that keeps everybody else dependent on the supplier (think of DeBeers and their diamonds, how zealously and jealously they control production there -- it's actually quite striking the measures they take to ensure control). And even nuclear, the most-likely to be implemented "alternative" energy source is one that is tightly-controlled and centralized (which, in my view, is why it's the likeliest to be fully realized).

The "problem" with wind and solar is that if the right approach is used, it would allow individuals to become their own energy producers. It's no accident that the existing model for even these alternatives is having solar and wind farms -- trying to centralize these alternative energy sources, and keeping them "behind the wall," brokered by energy companies.

The biggest nightmare of the power brokers is a decentralized energy grid, because suddenly people would no longer be dependent on a company for their power needs (sure, the wind and solar suppliers would still have a market, but the centralized power company, whether oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear -- would be extinct).

Fundamentally, it's about control, as is so much in our society. People generate their own power, grow their own food, what need is there for a State? You'll see -- while they won't frame it that way (because of what it implies), centralization of power will continue to be the shadow hanging over the energy debate, and the goal will be keeping everybody dependent on power companies and utilities for their energy needs, regardless of the actual energy delivered.

Shrimps On Prozac?

Weird study I just saw today on SALON, basically showing that shrimp exposed to the main chemical in Prozac are more vulnerable to dying, for whatever reason. Several things about this -- I've been wondering for years about the role antidepressants play in suicides and murder-suicides, but the prospect of the chemical poisoning the environment by the way of urban runoff is creepy as well. The tip of the hat to brain parasites manipulating serotonin levels in shrimp is, of course, intriguing, too, given my lingering fascination with parasites. Parasites are tricky mofos. I'm forever amazed that dinosaurs had tapeworms, and those frickin' tapeworms survived the extinction of dinosaurs and migrated to mammalian species (no doubt because early mammals scavenged dinosaur remains and picked up the tapeworms, which then adapted themselves to mammalian bodies). That's an impressive (and horrifying) evolutionary feat. Don't underestimate parasites! Seriously. They. Will. Fuck. You. Up.

I've also long followed endocrine disruptors in the environment, too, which seem to come from plastics, creating false estrogens which may increase risks of cancer (and may be responsible for declining fertility in populations). Creepy shit.