Posts by Jason Kemp
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
BTW -re comments on China
China has 4 new Nuclear power plants in progress at the moment. The 3,610 MW capacity they are expected to generate is actually a good thing compared to if those plants were coal fired.
Lingao 3, Lingao 4, Qinshan 2-3, and Tianwan-2
China's record on hydro power isn't so good either. Edward Burtynsky's work shows that.
The 3 Gorges dam has planned capacity of 18,200 MW (equivalent to 15 average nuclear plants) It is huge 3 Gorges project It is though the largest hydro project in the world - arguably the real long term costs (environmental & massive population relocation) are too high ($25b in construction as well.)
India has 7 new nuclear plants that almost ready.
Kaiga-3, Kaiga-4, Kudankulam-1, Rajasthan-5, Rajasthan-6, Kudankulam-2 and PFBRSince China and India are both catching up in overall energy use terms - I suspect that the US sees this as a good thing and nuclear probably does suit both of them - much as I dislike that answer.
The U.S with 5% of the worlds population can no longer continue to use 25% of global oil production and 40% of the world’s gasoline.
Energy use has to be looked at in relation to Oil as well.
-
For those who are in a hurry - here is the conclusion of US study called
Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free
A Roadmap for U.S. Energy PolicyCentral Finding
The overarching finding of this study is that a zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power and without acquiring carbon credits from other countries. In other words, actual physical emissions of CO2 from the energy sector can be eliminated with technologies that are now available or foreseeable. This can be done at reasonable cost while creating a much more secure energy supply than at present. Net U.S. oil imports can be eliminated in about 25 years. All three insecurities – severe climate disruption, oil supply and price insecurity, and nuclear proliferation via commercial nuclear energy – will thereby be addressed. In addition, there will be large ancillary health benefits from the elimination of most regional and local air pollution, such as high ozone and particulate levels in cities, which is due to fossil fuel combustion. -
There are a whole series of reasons why nuclear - doesn't make sense for NZ. Sometime this month or October the final version of NZ Energy Strategy will be released - that gives a full range of option - nuclear is at the bottom of the list.
Where there are already nuclear power plants some argument can be made for keeping them in the short term* but solar power is increasingly becoming a viable option for large scale systems.
In both Australia and Algeria there are 150MW systems going in right now and in Germany (not the sunniest place) there is a great solar power success story to tell.
Ironically half of the U.S uranium supplies come from Russia at present. This is very convenient stockpile and can't last as the Russians may decide not to be so generous to the U.S.
To get enough for uranium for 1 plant for 1 year requires around 50 tons (1300mw example BTW would be 28% of NZ's current capacity) This would need at least 500,000 tons of ore to be processed as the general level is 0.01% or less in Australia. Consequently there is huge energy consumption just to get the fule - not to mention environmental damage.
Both the UK and the U.S have roadmaps for non nuclear future available if they want to check that out.
I have also linked to a series of studies on the risks around using nuclear power.
-
Tom Cotter had much more time to put TVNZ's case in Wellington and basically charmed everyone.
Glad to hear it - will upgrade TVNZ rating to watch this space.
-
Thanks for organising the TBG again.
Mr Brown was a highlight in that he showed a different and more hopeful vision of a current and future Singapore. I kept thinking of Jonathan Swift when Mr Brown was presenting.
The significance of NZOAir being able to fund more broadly was highlighted well by the contribution's from Clare - even if she was a little defensive. It was good that she showed some passion for her subject.
By contrast. Eric from TVNZ needs to watch a video of himself sometime. No doubt the corporate environment is tough and suspicious - however I did think he could have loosened up a bit.
It does sound as if TVNZ have some good initiatives on the way and I expected a bit more confidence and something more than the old digital soup rhetoric that I remember from 1993.
That is; the idea of similar content on multiple platforms with common branding is hardly news. Still - it is a move in the right direction.
-
Regarding Lomberg Chris Anderson's opinion
Wired editor Chris Anderson got an advance copy of Bjorn Lomborg's upcoming book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, and his summary is: read it, but don't follow his advice.
There is an earlier video of Lomborg over at TED
Priorities for Saving the World which may be of interest on what to do with $50b - where to start which is of more interest -
Re: Music bundle
Some interesting observations here on album downloads and a good music site generally. Is your album release strategy the right one? EMI is doing something on this at the moment as Coolfer notes.
EMI has increased its digital album market share by 5% in the last two months, but its CD share has dropped 2.6%. EMI's total market share -- including all other formats -- has dropped 1.7%. Note that CD and digital are going in the opposite directions. Also note that the end result, the total change, is negative. EMI and iTunes have been able to get people to buy more digital albums, but total market share has dropped. Is this because of a CD-for-digital substitution or because EMI's releases were relatively weak compared to those of its competitors?
EMI's New Digital Strategy May Have Prevented A Worse June/July Slide
-
I saw the Cure back in the '80's and felt no need to revisit this time. Some things are best left to memory.
Scott Kara getting all teared up when they played Charlotte Sometimes was the best bit of his review. The reason-
I named my dog after that song and, adding to the emotion, was the fact the Cure were the first band I ever really loved.
It seems like many gig reviews now are even more cliched than they used to be.
Moving right along now....
I read your Dylan review in the Herald and the bit about Bob being "emotionally distant" sounded like a clue or tip off to me.
That sounds like the same old Bob who got blown off the stage by Tom Petty (who only had 1 good album) back in 1985 and may as well have phoned in his whole performance at Mt Smart.
There is no doubt that on a good day Bob could be great. It's just that those performances from 1966ish on the "No Direction Home" DVD are so good it is hard to even come close.
And it does seem like living on the road as Bod did for many years has made his a worse performer / not a better one.
I like the idea Bob playing in the Civic - but only if he is "present" - if it is just another caricature performance then I'd rather save my money for someone who might actually surprise and engage.
Ryan Adams perhaps at the Bruce Mason sounds like a magic combination.
Only one problem - no baby sitter - perhaps you could check it out for us and write a real review this time please.
-
oops that reference link was
Running the Numbers: Why Newspapers Are Screwed
see also
The shift in advertising spending from traditional media to online and digital alternatives is taking place across the globe. Already, some forecasters expect newspaper advertising to be overtaken by online spending in the UK and Sweden this year.
The VSS forecasts also illustrate the lag between changes in consumers’ behaviour and advertising spending.
The survey also measured the time spent on different media, and in 2007 the amount of time spent reading newspapers is expected for the first time to be overtaken by time spent online.
By Aline van Duyn in New York in FT.com
Published: August 7 2007 05:03 | Last updated: August 7 2007 05:03 to read the full version see
-
There is a much wider debate on the future of media / especially newspape such as this piece
"It's easy to say that the New York Times and other newspaper companies are screwed, but sometimes it helps to actually run the numbers. Do you know why they're screwed? It's actually not the cost of paper, ink, trucks, printing plants, and other physical distribution expenses. Rather, it's the cost of content creation.
Senior New York Times reporters believe they are underpaid, and, relative to other highly educated folks at the peak of their professions, they sure are. But relative to the online revenue they generate, those talented reporters, columnists, editors, and researchers actually cost a fortune."
And then they run some number on what is happening to ad revenues for classified etc.