Geothermal Power

It occurred to me in the cold heights of my bathroom (where someone saw fit to leave the window open throughout a snowstorm) that geothermal power is a really, really, really, dumb idea.

"B-but it doesn't create any pollutants! It's natural! It's eco-friendly, man," one might retort.

Those are all good points. Except the last one. The last one is as short sighted as many eco-geeks are. I will now guide you through the reasoning why making ventures in geothermal power is a bad fucking idea.

1. The Earth was created well over 4 billion years ago. (Argue. I dare you.)
2. When the Earth was created, it was very rather warm.
3. The Earth today is rather cool in comparison, however the centre is still molten hot.
4. The molten hot centre is made of iron which, while moving, creates a magnetic field.
5. This magnetic field shields the Earth from many of the Sun's rays that are harmful to living things both directly and indirectly.
6. Recall the previous data: Earth was hot, but cooled. The centre of the Earth is hot. If we extrapolate this data we can predict that the centre of the Earth will cool.
7. Recall point 4. If the centre of the Earth cools, it stops being molten. If it stops being molten, it stops moving. If it stops moving, it stops creating a magnetic field.
8. Recall point 5. If there is no protective magnetic field around the Earth, then the harmful rays from the Sun will reach the surface.
9. This is the most important point. You and the majority of the living things you want to be eco-friendly towards live on the surface of the Earth.

So tell me, why exactly do we think it's a good idea to punch holes into the surface of the Earth and vent out all the heat? Because it's such a huge source of energy that we'll never use it all? Yeah, you said that about fossil fuels.

Too Rich

I have three fundamental problems with leaf blowers.

1. Protection. Okay, so you have hearing protection. What about me? I'm outside too! Where once there were the sounds of the birds in the trees and the gentle breeze rustling the leaves, nature's beauteous splendour ev- b'RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR-WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBWRRRRRRRR-RWRRRRRRRRRRWRBRRRRRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRBRRWRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBR-RRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrbrrrrrrr!
- of life so peaceful.

Sorry, what was that?

2. Effectiveness. So the basic premise is that you blow the leaves onto someone else's property, right? Seems like it's not -

Motherfucker!

- air turbulence, right?

3. Cost.

-OR-

What's the fucking point?

Desensitized

I've come to the conclusion that people are twats and desensitization is a good thing. This is not to be confused with bastardification.

Let me give you an example. We eat me, or at least a lot of us do. That meat comes from a living, breathing, and yes, thinking and feeling animal. It wants to live and hurts when it is killed. This is a fact of life. It's the food chain. We kill things and we eat them. Being humane isn't about not doing what we're designed to do because something gets hurt. Being humane is about being respectful for the life that ended to keep yours going. Look at most wild animals. A dog will shake the bejesus out of its prey to break its neck. A cat will go for the jugular to bleed it out as fast as possible. Given the tools that they have, this is a very good way to do it. It is the humane way to do it.

So understanding that animals are killed, bled out, cut into pieces and shipped to your grocer is something that I think is positive quality. Being able to see it and watch it and understand its necessity (for what portion of the process is entirely necessary. I do understand that a degree of slaughtering animals is a cost/time analysis) makes us better people because it keeps us from being ignorant. Enjoying it is another story. That's being a bastard.

That being said, if watching that sort of thing turns you off meat all together, then you're appropriately sensitive. What bothers me is the people who are bothered by killing animals but are comfortable eating them. It's the cold truth about the world that allows us to demand to make it better. If you disagree with killing animals but want to eat them then I urge you to tell someone how to kill animals without it being uncomfortable for you. The fact is, you can't do it. And if you say, "oh, just wait for them to die on their own" be prepared for less meat to cost way more. Animals that die on their own die in one of 4 ways, in order of likelihood:

1. killed by another animal
2. get sick and die
3. die in an accident,
4. or die of old age.

The maximum yield of meat from these events is thus

1. none (another animal ate it)
2. none (it's diseased. Unless you want to eat "we think we cooked what killed it out of it" beef)
3. variable (depends when you find it)
4. about half of what it could be (ever notice how old people are a lot skinnier than younger people?)

So stop whining about how we have to kill animals while you're busy grilling up another delicious steak. It's the circle of life.

If you don't like the meat debate, how about the encouraged desensitization we go through constantly? What about war? You can't watch an animal be killed for food but you can support the slaughter of a nation of people who aren't even necessarily fighting a cause, but are defending their country? How about our desensitization toward our fellow man? We hear about countless violent crimes every day and all we do is lock our doors. If you gave a shit about "humanity" you'd do something to stop it. If you cared about every life you wouldn't only be looking out for yourself. Start a neighbourhood watch. Investigate the crime. Make sure these criminals are put away. Feed the hungry. House the homeless. Hell, start small and give those cold bastards waiting for the bus a lift in your toasty 8 seater SUV.

Oh, I forgot you're doing your part by having a "fuel efficient" SUV. You're a real humanitarian.

Pro-Meat is Pro-Life

I don't think animal rights activists really get it sometimes. Like any good cause, there are some people that take it too far. I think that people that want to have humanity abandon their meat-eating ways don't quite understand what they're asking.

Most livestock isn't bred for its resilience in the natural world. Cows specifically have a difficult time not being eaten, whether it be by people or by wild animals. It is, in fact, people that keep cows alive by protecting them from the real world. Sure, it's just so we can murder them later, but at least they get to live their lives. Cows would soon become extinct if they were abandoned as livestock because they no longer fit into the outside eco-system.

Yes, cows were at one point capable of surviving the wild. But so were people. People wouldn't last a week in the wild without technology. What about those survival guys on the Discovery Channel, you ask? One word: Gortex. Just because they don't have an SUV doesn't mean they are separate from technology. Man would die without shelter, clothing and weapons. Cows would die without fences.

Things do, however, need to change. Just because the purpose of breeding cows is to eat doesn't mean that they should suffer in feed lots. At least try and simulate a naturally safe world. This is what we should be striving for. As for all of you hardcore "meat is murder" people, just be thankful that we don't domesticate more animals to eat. We totally could.

Let It Be

I don't know if this is a good idea.I think scientists are getting too caught up in "how to keep things the same." Things die. That's just how it works. Furthermore, new things can't grow until old things die. Take a look at these helpful examples.

1. Pine trees. Pine trees drop hundreds of pinecones, an incredibly small percentage of which will ever grow into trees. The larger trees make it impossible for new things to grow around them. But when these trees burn, the pinecones open up, the sun breaks through, and the remains of the fallen trees nourish the next generation.

2. Ideas. You have to let old ideas die, or even actively kill them to allow new ideas to spread. Sub-example: the Metric system. You can't use two systems just because you're kind of fond of the old system. In order to let this (very old) new idea reach its objective (of making everything easier for everyone and allow for a cooperation of standards) possible. While some countries understood that you have to abandon old ideas to let new ones take root, others have held on to their no-longer-useful ideals. (see Liberty, Freedom, God, and the Imperial System. Actually, that's not a bad title for a satirical book.)

3. Relationships. You have to let past relationships die before a new one can grow.


I'm not saying that we should ignore preservation, but when something goes extinct... it's like a breakup. Sure, you can be sad, but you have to get over it. The worst thing to do is get that idea that you can get her back. In fact, nature is a lot like a woman. Take care of her, treat her right, and when she goes away, lament. But always move on.

Green Energy

I'm reading New Scientist today (I say that like it's what I do) and this guy Mark Jacobson has been reviewing alternate energy sources. Finally, someone who knows what's going on. Biofuels are for complete and total morons (my words, not his).

'Environmentalists': "I know! Let's grow a bunch of food!"

African kids: "Can we have some?"

'Environmentalists': "Ha! No, silly starving kids. This food is for driving SUVs, not for 3rd world countries. Eco-SUVs."

Essonol: "Okay, we switched from gasoline to ethanol. Now, where's the billions of litres of fuel we need?"

'Environmentalists': "We need to grow more. Just sit tight."

Grade School Math Student: "According to my calculations 5318008. Now, look at it upside down. Yeah? Oh! And you need twice the surface area of the Earth to grow enough corn every season to consistently keep up with current fuel needs."

'Environmentalists': "You're making that up."

Grade School Math Student: "Totally. I hate doing math. But it doesn't take a mathematician to tell you that you need more space than you have to grow enough corn to last an entire season. Not to mention basic knowledge of agriculture tells us the soil is depleted of its nutrients when a single crop is grown there season after season. That's where four year rotation comes in."

'Environmentalists': "For a math student, you certainly bring up a lot of non-math related arguments."

Grade School Math Student: "Yeah, it's because I'm not a complete an total idiot."

Okay, back to the point.

The energy sources that Jacobson found most promising were, in descending order:

• Wind

• Concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a tower of water)

• Geothermal energy

• Tidal energy

• Solar panels

• Wave energy

• Hydroelectric dams

Unfortunately, these still have their problems.

1. Wind Power. Wind is a fundamental component to weather. To harvest energy from it, you are removing that energy. Energy is what makes wind go. I'm no climatologist or meteorologist, but when you start fucking with the wind, you start fucking with global ecosystems. Who knows the ramifications of erecting vast fields of wind turbines? It won't be apparent until we are dependent, but there are some serious consequences to removing that much energy from the wind.

2. Solar Thermal. I always thought the way to do it was to heat a hunk of salt or sodium or something like that until it melts and use that to vapourize a small amount of water which is used to run turbines. You know, rather than making a giant kettle. But, if there is a method that isn't reliant on heating a large body of water, this seems fairly viable, save for its expanse. This could be resolved possibly by overlapping solar power and pre-existing infrastructure. The great core of a city could be a power plant, and all the surrounding buildings might reflect light from calibrated mirrors toward a single bright beacon of a renewable future. Plus, you could regulate the building owners to maintain their mirrors as a cost for the real estate (or pay a hefty government tax to have them do it for you). I mean, cities are already affecting the Earth's natural albedo. Might as well make electricity out of it.

3. Geothermal. Okay, I just have one question here. Have any of you scientists ever eaten anything hot? I mean, come on! Imagine the Earth is one big pizza pocket. During the formation of the galaxy, accretion formed the Earth on High for 1 1/2 minutes. Now Earth sits on the plate of space. It is cool and crusty on the outside, but liquid hot on the inside. What you're proposing is for us to stab holes in the Earth and use that heat for power. Now, we can't exactly eat the Earth when it is merely deliciously warm rather than inhospitably hot. So it will sit on the plate and cool and cool and cool until we are a man-made asteroid. That's an exaggeration, but the part about cooling still stands. Again, messing with the Earth's temperature probably isn't exactly eco-friendly. Think of the places where geothermal energy escapes naturally. Do you have a hundred million large scale examples in your head? Didn't think so.

4. Tidal Energy. I've been thinking about this one for years. Other than maybe not being that efficient and the high probablity that large amounts of natural habitats would eventually be destroyed (think about it. Ain't nothing living in the toxic waters of New York City that can't live somewhere else.) Gravity is the weakest and greatest force in the universe. It may not push very hard, but it is unstoppable. No man-made machine could ever unintentionally disrupt the gravitational interaction between Earth and the Moon. But, again, inefficient at best. Although, the work load is pretty even. High tide, gravity works. Low tide, maintenance.

5. Solar Panels. Raw materials. Where do you get all of them? A lot of plastic and metal and glass and... and all those things over again. Other than that, hella-stellar idea. Only, make it mandatory. I'll come back to that one later.

6. Wave Energy. It's like gravity lite. But not a bad idea. Using the weight of water is never a bad idea. 'Cause it be heavy.

7. Hydro Electric Dams. Great idea! Except for the beavers and fish and plants and bears and cougars and moose and wolves and deer and the rest of the temperate zone riverbed ecosystem. Fish swim upstream to spawn every year, right? I have an idea! Why don't we put little generators inside every woman so that-
I'll stop myself there, but you can see what I mean. Fish need rivers to spawn, and thus, to live. Maybe we could exploit other species for energy. 200km/moose


Obviously I'm big on this whole environmental impact deal. I kinda like the environment. But I understand that we do nothing that is 100% eco-friendly. The best source of energy is all of the above. This energy crisis is like being poor. The solution isn't a single answer and it's not easy and we will have to make sacrifices. One big heist exposes us to serious, long term dangers. The solution is to scrape and save and work all the options. It's all about the division of labour.

I just want to finish up here by talking about hydrogen power as a replacement for gasoline. It only makes sense so long as we can store more energy in hydrogen than we can in a battery with the added bonus that we get to keep the same combustion engine technology with lighter environmental consequences. I propose that half of you scientists go work on a way to store electricity better and the other half works on how to make storing hydrogen practical and safe. All of you scientists who are working on ways to transmit energy, keep doing your thing. You will be the saviours of us all.