Energy Research at the Weapons Labs?

Posted by on

I wrote a piece for this morning’s Albuquerque Journal trying to address what I think is a misunderstanding afoot in New Mexico about the future of Los Alamos and Sandia labs – the idea that they can shift to energy reserach as support for nuclear weapons spending declines. It ain’t gonna be easy:

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised $150 billion over 10 years for renewable energy, and lab backers hope some of that money can flow into Los Alamos and Sandia.
But those within the federal energy establishment point to reasons why the potential may be less than New Mexico labs’ backers hope.
Sandia and Los Alamos are just two among 21 Energy Department labs and research centers. Many have stood on the sidelines watching while Sandia and Los Alamos saw their nuclear weapons budgets grow, and will likely think that it is their turn now. More importantly, other labs — most notably the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado — already specialize in the sort of work the Obama administration wants to fund.
Los Alamos and Sandia may be able to get a small piece of the action, one knowledgeable insider told me, partly by partnering with other energy research centers. But it is unrealistic to expect expanded energy funding to make up for any declines in nuclear weapons spending.

Letter from Bhutan

Posted by on

Jim Baca shares a delightful letter from his sister, traveling in Bhutan:

I was in a temple yesterday for a festival and observed about 60 nine-year old monks in training. The adult monks allowed the 4 of us to lean against the wall and watch. One of the teachers walked by me and whispered, “You United States?” I nodded “yes”. He then pulled aside his monk robe near his neck and on his tunic underneath, there was an “Obama ’08” button!

Cactus Fruit

Posted by on


cactus fruit

Originally uploaded by heinemanfleck.

A tray of cactus fruit, which Lissa is processing for later holiday treats. She harvested what must be about 50 pounds (~100 kg) from the prickly pear in the front yard this morning. The picture doesn’t quite do justice to the lovely purple color. She cooks it down and mashes it into a lovely juice – delicate flavor, gorgeous fuschia.

Food Yet Cheaper

Posted by on

Global food prices continue to fall, according to the Economist, down 6 percent over the last month and now sitting 8 percent lower than a year ago. I assume this is good news for the hungry, who can afford more to eat. But what effect does it have on food producers in the world’s poor bits, and therefore on the long term development of poor world agriculture needed to ultimately address world hunger problems?

The Peak Oil-Climate Linkage

Posted by on

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a short piece for the newspaper about a talk by David Rutledge on his analysis of the peak oil-climate linkage:

Humanity may be rapidly running out of fossil fuels, according to Dave Rutledge, but every cloud has its silver lining.
In this case, the California Institute of Technology professor told a University of New Mexico audience Friday afternoon, running out of coal, petroleum and natural gas sooner than we expect would mean less chance to damage Earth’s climate.
“If it’s true,” he said of his data, “it is good news for climate change.”

Now Andy Dessler has taken the discussion a bit farther, with a nice discussion at Nature Climate Feedback:

There is an emerging view among some experts that recoverable fossil-fuel reserves are far smaller than previously thought. If so, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) highest emissions scenarios could be unrealistically high, thus limiting the worst-case climate change during the 21st century. This view of a constrained fossil-fuel supply points to a potential convergence of thinking about policies and actions needed to address the seemingly divergent problems of energy supply and climate change.

There is much to think about here, because if Dessler and Rutledge are right, there is a linkage between energy and climate policies that is both tighter and more immediate than is conventionally assumed. I had a great talk with Andy about this yesterday afternoon, and I pointed out to him what I think is a weakness in the analysis that both he and Rutledge have offered. The classic Hubbert analysis they employ does not, I think, sufficiently account for the economic effects of permanently higher energy costs increasing the body of economically recoverable reserves. I don’t think this invalidates the argument, but I think the models they’re employing need to better account for that variable. (I’ve got a small stack of papers dealing with this issue to read. I’ll try to expand this argument as I get a better handle on it.)

I don’t think this is in any way a fatal criticism, though, and I think these guys are onto an interesting line of inquiry.

Stuff I Wrote Elsewhere

Posted by on

Don Hancock, the watchdog:

Hancock is famously ascetic, receiving a salary of $9,000 a year for his work. He is a religious man, the son of a minister, and is active in the University Heights United Methodist Church, which is within walking distance of the modest university district apartment where he lives.
“We’re all children of God,” he said. “God created the universe, and we’re supposed to take care of it. Contamination isn’t taking care of it.”
It was Chuck McCutcheon, a former Journal reporter whose book “Nuclear Reactions” is the definitive history of WIPP’s political saga, who called him “the Ralph Nader of radioactive waste.”

Parasitic

Posted by on

I’m obviously no Malcolm Gladwell, but I’m a journalist too, and this very much captures how I feel about what I do:

“I spend my time talking to people who tell me things, and then I write them down,” he says. “I’m necessarily parasitic in a way.” He pauses, as if to consider whether he’s protesting too much. “I have done well as a parasite,” he goes on. “But I’m still a parasite.”