La Fitness Seattle, Cost

Why call it when we say energy efficiency grant?

subsidies, incentives, tax exemptions, and different ways of paying all of the high costs that only benefit just a few, are a source of opacity that prevents objective analysis, calm and impartial energy sources and efficiency. Think

nuclear energy, for example. Last June, President of the Forum of the English Nuclear Industry, Eduardo Gonzalez, advocated an increase in this energy , which last year accounted for a quarter of electricity production in Spain, because "energy model can not depend on fuel fossil prices and climate change " and used to remember that the " average production cost is EUR 0.1083 per kilowatt-hour. " But is it really that the actual cost of kWh? Is there include initial official aid and compensation for the nuclear freeze? What about the heavy toll of waste management? What about the costs of decommissioning the plant itself?

The case of alternative energy

This lack of transparency with energy issues hinders informed decision-making and supports the demagogic discourse. But if it is difficult to assess the cost in a traditional power, do it with renewable energy is a pure pipe dream.

Consider, for example solar photovoltaic energy. In the spectacular solar panel that was installed at the Barcelona Forum, timid voices were reminded that the energy consumption to produce the facility was much higher than the energy that would produce. That is, the point of view of energy efficiency, a bread made with a cake.

But there is no data to make a serious analysis, so that the valuation is at the mercy of the media. Thus, if a politician decides to subsidize a photovoltaic installation, Take, for example, monocrystalline silicon, the media abound in the ecological related to this proposal, but surely obviate the costly process to get there. Forget to say that you should first reduce the silica sand with coal to break the strong bonds of silicon with oxygen, and eventually would be released into the atmosphere as CO2. Should be obvious that after treating silicon with halogen for a volatile compound that must be purified by distillation and then decompose to form pure silicon, with the inevitable issue of halogen radical damage. And that's not all, later would have to melt the silicon obtained for a large single crystal form by controlled growth, and finally cut into wafers capable of converting sunlight into a weak electrical current. If a wafer is cut up into tiny fragments, and each serves to build a chip or power a calculator, this effort will be very profitable. But if the idea is to cover a roof with these very expensive wafers to produce electricity, probably will never recover the energy that we had to employ in manufacturing. That is, we would be wasting energy. Of course, if a politician eager for medals decided to subsidize the installation, we would free electricity but have a very high cost for the planet.

not get rid of the wind stream of disinformation. In a recent article published in Diagonal , Pedro Prieto explained that " a 2.3 MW wind generator (it would take between 3000 and 5000 aircraft of this type to replace the Almaraz nuclear power station) is 1000 tons Concrete for foundations, 150 tons of steel, several tons of copper and 30 tons of fiberglass blades. A Spain wind power would cost 70% of steel consumed in Spain, about twice the cement consumed in Spain and about twice the fiberglass that is consumed in the world. " On the other hand, Javier Alvarez Vara denounced this week in five days " lack of transparency surrounding the official support for this technology, just look at the allocation of permits to parks and capital gains the resale of some of these concessions. Once you put all the items in the balance, the policy of temporary support and transparent would be the only sensible. A change in incentives that the market indicates excessive concessions would lead also to the use of more efficient wind technologies between now available. The current bonus system encourages rapid occupation the territory, regardless of optimum utilization of existing wind resources. "

Hydrogen, the energy vector expected

What about the use of hydrogen? Technical tests show that the cell technology with hydrogen is valid for low-power devices and high cost, such as laptops and mobile, but quite inadequate to replace fossil fuels. So why vehicle manufacturers speak so optimistically in the proximity of a hydrogen economy? Mainly because of heavy subsidies public to this energy, which hide the real cost. And the scarcity of light, or perhaps just demagoguery, I do not know what is worse, some politicians, who see the hydrogen goose that lays golden eggs and a machine to attract votes from all streams. For example, in 2003 Bush won approval of a major project on hydrogen fuel cells. A project was also on the agenda of Kerry, and greater investment commitment. The European Commission itself has proposed supporting the transition to a hydrogen economy, for which it is supporting ambitious initiatives for production, storage and hydrogen distribution. The governor of California goes even further. Arnold Schwarzenegger is promoting the construction of a network of hydrogen fueling stations, sure if there will be stations for hydrogen vehicles. Unfortunately it has been less original in the design of the stations would use natural gas to produce hydrogen (and therefore large amounts of CO2).

In what appears to be general agreement that the source is more environmentally friendly and sustainable energy is energy saving and efficiency, but how can we evaluate the efficiency of an energy source with such darkness? To properly assess and manage investment efforts in the right direction is essential to have homogeneous data, containing all objective factors include the noise of the grants.

The cost-benefit must be behind every political decision, that under the guise of an environmental action does not end up causing just the opposite. And, lest we forget, demagoguery is one of the worst enemies of the environment.

Street Value Valium 5mg

Chronicle of a tragedy foretold: Anniversary of the first nuclear explosion Ponte

This week marks-is a manner of speaking, the sixties of a macabre experiment, which would give a sharp turn to the history of mankind. This is the first nuclear explosion that took place in the Jornada del Muerto desert in Alamogordo (New Mexico).

The experiment, under the suggestive codenamed Trinity, apparently proposed by Robert Oppenheimer himself, was designed to test a new weapon developed at Los Alamos. Be the first nuclear explosion caused by humans, and responded to the need for experimental data on its destructive power, because there was only derived estimates of the calculations. Obviously, Oppenheimer did not choose the name of Trinity by the attractive star of Matrix, predictable scenario hypothesized uncontrolled development of nuclear power, but was inspired by a passage from the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, where he took the concept of trinity between the creator (Brahma), the protector (Vishnu) and Destroyer (Shiva).

To measure the effects of the Trinity, it was necessary to calibrate the instruments, which were detonated a few months before the experiment 108 tons of TNT stacked between the tubes full of fission products. And achieved an unprecedented explosion, however, was very weak compared with Trinity, so that some devices were damaged and lost many of the measurements provided.

got burned were also some of the participants in the experiment. At the end of the safety standards were almost nonexistent. Suffice it to say that the plutonium necessary for the core of the bomb was transported without any special protection or that the components were assembled in the McDonald Ranch in Alamogordo, where they were taken to the zero point for a pump. Final assembly took place in a simple tent! With this background
surprised that there were many casualties among the attendees, although the information in this regard is unclear. There is a document of Los Alamos National Laboratory on this, but it seems that this is restricted information. At least I could not access it ( LA-3719 Health Physics Survey of Trinity Site ). It does appear that some groups were seriously irradiated attending soldiers as guinea pigs protected by simple trenches.

On 16 July at half past five, was given the order to detonate. Oppenheimer followed from a shed located about ten kilometers from ground zero and even gave instructions to get back to the blast to protect against strong light, could not prevent several observers were blinded by the light. The reporters reflected the deep satisfaction of Oppenheimer convinced he had found the weapon that would end World War II, as actually happened. But Oppenheimer had not been so proud to know that he had just cut the ribbon of a tragic era, whose first event will take place a month later, when it fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the deadly nuclear devices that would change history. And who would later start the cold war, a dangerous time in which the excessive growth of nuclear weapons would threaten the very survival of the planet.

Fortunately, sanity returned to the political landscape through the nuclear non-proliferation agreements between the superpowers. However, we still suffer the consequences of that fever. According to New Scientist "enjoy" a worrying nuclear legacy, with nine nations with nuclear weapons, 27000 pump and 1855 tonnes of plutonium in the world. There are also many countries that, while not possessing nuclear weapons, have the materials and technology to develop it.

other words, the anniversary of the first nuclear explosion caused is not a celebration of throwing rockets, pun intended, or that humanity should be proud. But it is a reason to seek understanding among peoples. Nations continue to disagree and timid attempts to control nuclear activities are no more than cosmetic. If agreement is reached within a few days ago in Vienna from 89 nations decided to make a more intensive monitoring of nuclear materials. The attempt is appreciated, but is it enough?