(Section 1, Full Chapter 2 Sampler) - ONE: The New Abundant Energy Revolution & The Power of You

FR SA p EE M ter 1 PL .
2 E
Fu ll C ha
Author & Designer
RAY PODDER (Rahul Kumar Poddar)
ON E
The New Abundant Energy Revolution & The Power of You

(First Edition, v 1.0)
ISBN-13: 978-1468085617
2011, Ray Podder First Published: 1/2/2012

Image usages attributed to their
respective sources and publications with special thanks to Public Domain, Wikimedia & The Creative Commons Arc of Aum Publishing Culver City, California, U.S.A. arcofaum.org
ONE: The New Abundant Energy Revolution and The Power of You by Ray Podder is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
for every one of us
We think with the ideas we have. The ideas that form our beliefs, education, science, technology, relationships and policies to shape this world we call our home. The foundational ideas of the modern world are now leading us to an inflection point of divergent extremes. On one hand we have unprecedented exponential advances in technological breakthroughs and on the other we have the most dangerous obsession with material consumption that is depleting and destroying natural resources we cannot replenish. This book is about the ideas beyond the confusions of the day. The next ideas from the wise and the brave of the past and present to help us rethink a future that we can proudly pass on to our children. A future desperately in need of that which is most abundant in the universe yet made most scarce by the ideas of our ancestors. This is about our use of energy. Energy to empower us to make the next leaps forward. Energy that is actually abundant despite what we have been told and what we have been sold. Energy that is soon to be abundant enough to be free of charge and free us from the delusions of our past. Skeptics, enthusiasts, and everyone in between, a most heartfelt thank you for your attention. This is for every one of us.
CONTENTS
Prologue
O UR W O R L D
1
Introducti on
A D I NN E R F O R TH E D ELUS IO NAL
How an exercise for control from the old energy world order led to realizing the abundant ene rgy revolution
_ _ _ _ _ _______________________________ 17
Pa r t I
T H E S C A R C I T Y O F S ANITY
In the A ge of Abunda n c e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________________________
ARRESTING OF ADVANCEMENT: Science vs. the Status Quo DESPERATION FOR DEMAND: The Politics of Pollution SCIENCE OF SIMPLICITY: Innovations for Abundance PRAYING FOR PANACEA: Greenwashing the Greed
38
In ThisSample
Pa r t II
T H E Q UE S T F OR E Q UALITY
I n a Ti me of U nprecedented A c c es s __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____________________ ________________
RU L E S & R E VO LU T I O N S: The Distributing of Empowerment A NEW SOCIETY OF SHARING: The Abundance of Access MORE & MORE WILL NEVER EVER BE ENOUGH Greed & Envy Give In to Global Interdependence 181
Pa r t III
T HE N EX T R E C I PE S F OR R ES O NANCE
Adv anci ng Our Empower m en t
_________________________________________________ ACCELERATING CONVERGENCE: The Availability of Abundance EMPOWERING OUR ECONOMICS: Opening of Opportunities FRAMEWORK FOR FREE: Empowering the Emancipation 254
The Power of You
T H I N K| B UI L D | C ONNECT
People Centri c Possi bil i ti es _ _ _ _ _______________________________ THINK: Deleti ng the De l u s i o n s BUILD: Collaborati on for C r eati o n s CO NNE CT: Compassi on of C o m m u n i ty 364
Epi logue
ONE
____ 393
RESPECTS & REFEREN C E S __________________ ____ 407
Part One
SCARCITY
THE
SANITY
OF
SECTION CONTENTS
Pa r t I
T H E SC A R C I T Y O F S ANITY
In the A ge of Abund an c e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________________
ARRESTING OF ADVANCEMENT: Science vs. the Status Quo DESPERATION FOR DEMAND: The Politics of Pollution SCIENCE OF SIMPLICITY: Innovations for Abundance PRAYING FOR PANACEA: Greenwashing the Greed
In ThisSample
I think we have to confront the sad fact that science news is often just state propaganda dressed up as erudition.
Andrew Basiago
Courtesy: humanities.uci.edu
The Scarcity of Sanity

DES P ERAT IO N FO R DE MA ND: The Po l i ti c s o f Po l l u ti o n
KONG
BUILDING IN NEW YORK CITY IS ONE OF...
Those iconic moments that immediately come to mind as you tilt your head all the way back to squint up at the sky above from the foot of this twentieth century marvel on 5th Avenue. The thought that may not cross your mind is the fact that its 365,000 ton glory is nothing compared to the 2,714,140 tons of coal, or 7.4 times the entire mass of the Empire State Building is being burned in the U.S. every single day!1 The belief that another alternative does not yet exist or that the switching cost is too high may be the rational persons dilemma.
64
THE MIGHTY
THE INDELIBLE IMAGE OF
EMPIRE STATE
SWATTING FIGHTER PLANES ATOP THE
The need for immediate quarterly prots and the need to meet the 20+Terawatts 2 of growing appetite for global energy demand is what keeps coal, oil and gas burning economic engine chugging along. Every time you plug-in, switch on or start up todays power hungry machines in the context of the current scarce energy world order, you are effectively conrming the rationale for utilities to keep on burning the tons of coal that King Kong himself could not climb over!
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) reports 3 that the current electricity generation is the U.S. is about 3.03% from oil, 18.77% from gas, 0.6% from other fossil fuels, 19.28% from nuclear, 1.3% from biomass, 0.44% from wind, 0.36% from geothermal, 0.01% from solar, 0.10% from other unknown purchased fuel and a whopping 49.61% from coal!
The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 65
The U.S Energy Information Administration reports that for the 52 weeks ended as of June 12, 2011, the United States mined 1,057,367,000 tons of coal. The vast majority of this coal is used to produce electricity. The coal is burned in power plants to boil water that generates steam. The steam turns turbines to create the electricity that powers our modern world. Each day thousands and thousands of railroad cars travel across the United States full of coal that is on its way to be burned at power plants. The environmental and health risks of burning coal4 has been well documented and continues to be extensibly studied. We know for example that ne particle pollution from burning coal and other fossil fuels accounts for more deaths in the U.S. each year than drunk driving and homicides combined (23,600), causes hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and other chronic lung diseases in both children and adults. Furthermore coal ash we now conclusively know to be more radioactive than nuclear waste!5
So how much are you really saving the planet when you plug-in that electric car your beloved car or utility company is now promoting?
Considering that for each new EV6 (electric vehicle) introduced into the marketplace, the production per unit of a battery powered car (BEV) emits approximately 8.8 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere versus 5.6 for a gasoline powered car. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proudly forecasts having 1 million electric cars on the road by the year 2015 and that obviously has signicant implications of where and how that energy is generated to support them.7
Electric cars are awesome! They have fought a tremendous battle8 to claim their rightful position, and so by no means is this a bashing of the amazing progress passionate innovators have made in this area.
Today, electric vehicles are introducing breakthrough technical leaps from wireless charging 9 and 400 mile range batteries 10 to super efcient engines.11 Unfortunately, in the current context of the old energy world orders strategy they represent anything but. Affordability aside, maintaining their power position while using up the available coal reserves during the inevitable 40 year shift to 100% renewables, these mass produced EVs are part of a not so environmentally responsible plan. See, most of the big utilities bought all the coal rights decades ago, and big oil and gas control both the oil and gas supplies in the same way. A Renewable Energy Renaissance would severely cut into these old energy behemoths prots. So naturally, they will use whatever inuence they have to maintain the fossil fuel status quo in the car manufacturing space. In the short term, new mass manufactured EVs mean more utilization of coal resources, and in the near term, the Nuclear Industry is a natural t to maintain that control by buying what feels like more time to bring in the commercially mass produced Hydrogen Economy. Reactors are promoted to be used to produce Hydrogen that can be marketed to the public by big oil and gas, and with a public nuclear strategy in place, they get to sell down their oil and gas reserves in the next 40 year transition period. DOE has a vested interest in continuing its decades long suppression of breakthrough renewable energy and battery technologies. Big Oil & Gas can leverage and use the tax breaks and billions in federal grants to encourage carmakers to make the change over to mass produced Hydrogen cars, ...and the dirty energy power play deal would be locked in!
There are and have been alternative solutions developed for powering electric vehicles for years, including locally produced inexpensive hydrogen fuel cells in your backyard12 from simple tap water, molten salt thermal batteries 13 that require clean energy based charging14 a few times a month and other inventions such as the one from H.R. Johnson who in 1979 was granted patent 4,151.431 for an electric motor that required no outside power source. Though industry experts agreed that his invention worked, they also deemed it impractical, so a promising technology was conveniently swept aside. Like Johnson, today Thane Heins 15 has also created a similar technology and interestingly both inventors relied upon ideas introduced by Tesla back in 1905. The existence of these technologies and other even more innovative ones are featured later in this book, but that tangential path is not going to quench our current thirst for the coal fueled re that feeds our growing demand right now. Of course, the ofcial reports from the DOE and The Union of Concerned Scientists 16 assure us we can sustain demand without adding more coal powered plants (in the U.S. alone) other than four additional 1,100 megawatt reactors that we estimated would be built as a result of existing federal subsidies, 20 new conventional coal plants that were either under construction or approved by 2008, and 12 advanced coal plants with carbon capture and storage to demonstrate whether this technology will be feasible and affordable at commercial scale. The debate on whether or not new demand requires more dirty energy generation from coal17 is currently ongoing, with equally compelling evidence gathered on both sides. The bottom line is that no matter what the positive effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions via electric vehicles may be, coal is still king, and shows no signs of slowing down unless some major technological disruptions in the renewable space can be adopted without interrupting the current powers and prots that be. In other words, our electrication of transportation may reduce our
dependence on oil, but the juice to power our rides still depends on burning rotting dead dinosaurs no matter how we slice it! Coal fuels 40% of global electricity demand and 25% of world primary energy needs.18 It has puts food on the table for over 174,000 permanent blue collar workers in the U.S. alone19 where demand is only growing by 1.1%, so just imagine how many more peoples livelihoods it affects in a place like China where demand is growing by 4.1%! It seems highly irresponsible to say that we can do without the coal industry just because there are much better technologies available to do the job. This may is a misperception which assumes that this is the only viable option for employing millions of people who would not be good for anything else. There is no doubt that coal kills the air we breathe and if we continue much longer, we may not even have the breathable air left to complain about it, but the alternative still has to account for how to engage the billions of people worldwide who depend on it everyday. We see the images like this one below dumping tons of radioactive coal ash and water into the oceans where life began; and then ip the channel to the distractions designed to keep us complacent, but the damage is still happening!
Courtesy: metrolic.com
As mentioned earlier, the big energy strategy is to systematically deplete protable reserves in transitional succession over the next 40 years. The compounded health, environmental and social damages continue every hour of every day, while most of us are fed the most audacious lies to cover up the ugly realities. We have always known that it is prots over people for these guys, but the extent of it may just disgust you awake from the daze. Coal damage may just be surfacing, but oil goes much, much deeper.
Beyond Petroleum? Beyond Belief!

First, the accounts of the ongoing damage any of you can nd is just clicks away. The United States consumes 19.6 million barrels per day, of oil, which is more than 25% of the worlds total. As a result, the U.S produces one-fourth of the worlds carbon emissions.20 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration,21 total consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum increases from 86.1 million barrels per day in 2007 to 110.6 million barrels per day in 2035 if we continue our current rate. The transportation sector accounts for the largest increment in total liquids demand, making up nearly 80 percent of the world increase. Given this appetite, it is easy to see why we have spent countless resources, not to mention the resources depleted in wars to uncover 80% of known reserves and hoping to keep up with our addiction by whatever means necessary to uncover the remaining 20.
Courtesy: oilspillnews.net
Deepwater drilling rig rates in 2010 were around $420,000/day, a typical deep water well 100 days can cost around $100 million.22 That is IF they nd oil! With high performance jackup rig rates of around $150,000, and similar service costs, a high pressure, high temperature well can cost about $30 million. Multiply that by the 6 million plus drills sites attempted in the U.S. alone since the birth of the commercial petrochemical industry (with allowance for ination) and you start to get a feeling of how much fossil fuels are costing us. There are over 800,000 oil wells in America, producing an average of 50 barrels of oil a day. Virtually every well ever drilled has destroyed some patch of nature, and most wells leak a little. My friend Alex Lightman23 worked his way through his college years as a eld engineer for a major oil company. He told me that every time they drilled a well, they destroyed property and left behind a moonscape of toxic waste. He says that of the one trillion barrels of proven reserves,
only about 150 billion are under control of the privately owned (even if publicly traded) oil companies. The rest of these oil reserves are owned by governments, which use them for anything from 1/3 to 90% of their government budgets. So even from a business perspective, the oil business is mostly run by bureaucrats who minimize research and development spending in favor of quarterly prots, with little room for major energy innovation. Oil companies own a dwindling percentage of remaining oil reserves, even as the reserves themselves get smaller, as demand outpaces supply for oil, and it is picking up at a breakneck pace primarily because of the growth of China. Thats not the worst of it. Then there is the question of Peak Oil. By most expert estimates as of April 2011, we are seeing the inevitable decline with both known reserves and potential extraction. 24 From the comprehensive research and report available on the website called theoildrum.com, it looks like the growth rate of world oil supply has gradually been slowing.
The growth rate was highest in the 1965 to 1973 period, at 7.9% per year. Then we hit the period of 1973 to 1975, when we ran into conict with OPEC regarding oil supplies. The trend rate dropped to 3.9% in the 1975 to 1979 period. Between 1979 and 1983, oil consumption dropped to a -3.9% per year, when we picked some of the low hanging fruit regarding oil usage (mostly by reducing oil from electricity generation and making more fuel efcient cars). The trend between 1983 and 2004
shifted to +1.5% per year, and since 2004, seems to be about +0.2%. Soon, this is expected to drop suddenly around 2013. We are likely to see a huge production decline, reecting a combination of less demand for high-priced oil as supplies continue to be very tight, except at high prices. Additionally, some countries may drop out of competition for oil, as their nancial situations deteriorate. The grim details of the impending crisis can be found on the oilcrisis.com website, and the future that the oil companies promised their children like in Saudi Arabia may never ever happen25 leading to nothing short of an angry social revolution with millions of unemployed youth virtually guaranteed to live a lesser quality of life than their parents.
An even more disturbing account of peak oil can be found in Richard Duncans The Peak of World Oil Production, often referred to as the Olduvai theory.26 In it Duncan states that: World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45% per year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64% per year. Then suddenly, and for the rst time in history, energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33% per year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving the modern mode of Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years. In the recent wake of the BP oil spill disaster off of the Louisiana coastline in the Gulf of Mexico, the concerns of the practices around drilling sparked both debate and investigations. It seems that there are 3,500 offshore drilling rigs 27 and platforms off of the U.S. coastline. Seventy-nine of them deepwater wells. Just 62 inspectors nationwide so that works out to about an average of each inspector being responsible for 56 rigs. We dont know how many of them may not meet the regulations, but if the government thinks theyre a big problem, theyre supposed to shut those rigs down. Those are just the ones that produce. There are at least 27,000 abandoned drill sites 28 for both gas and oil in the Gulf waters which are potentially ticking time bombs for even more catastrophic events to come. The sludge and brackish water created from the processing of crude oil have devastated local biodiversity and human health as evident in places like Louisiana. What was once a beautiful bayou is now home to cancers, extinction and a multitude of chronic health conditions! Filmmaker and activist Josh Tickell29 from Louisiana has captured this sad fact in a heart wrenching and personal way in his lm Fuel.30
His more recent 2011 lm The Bix Fix 31 tells a story even closer to home as he and his wife, co-director and producer Rebecca Harrell Tickell experienced rst hand the effects of the undersea spillage that BP has yet to clean up. The moving footage and personal stories in the lm clearly show how the huge undersea slick is poisoning the ocean and that toxic chemical dispersants used to break up the oil are harming the region's residents in ways far worse than just the oil itself ! Many, including Rebecca herself have developed chronic blisters, rashes and respiratory problems as a direct result of these dispersants, namely Corexit,32 which is currently illegal in the U.S. Corexit not only hides the visible oil from the surface of the water, so that BP pays smaller nes publicly, but it also creates far more devastating consequences, as it turns the oil into an aerosol form that break into the cell walls of living beings. Oil is a carcinogen. If you have any doubts whether oil is indeed a carcinogen, just look up the board of Sloan-Kettering, 33 the largest (over $6 billion a year) cancer research organization. You will nd J.P. Morgan, Perseus and other oil company executives sit on their board of directors. Why is it worth oil company time to sit on that board? Could it be the fact we have created over 10 million types of carbon compounds in the process of extracting the two trillion barrels of oil? The cooked and pressed garbage of 350 million years of plants dying and animals, their feces and decomposing matter, and then turned it into a burned aerosol? Oil is composed of long chains of Carbon and Hydrogen atoms. So are us humans. If we maliciously wanted to maximize cancer, there could not be a better recipe! The irony is that it is our greed thats doing the deed for us and unfortunately greed is good for business today. More cancer, more cancer drugs to raise the Big Pharma contribution to our GDP...oh did I forget to mention that big pharma execs also sit on the Sloan Kettering board as well? Then there is the cost of protecting the oil investments that we oil consumers never really signed up for. A summary of the sordid history of
big oil is widely available from various reports and lms on the web34 including the recent lm Oild35 if you want an awakening education into the dark sickness that is our oil addiction. Besides the ongoing environmental damage most of us all hear and know about, it seems that big oil is also passing on the tab to its users in the U.S. (technically worldwide), now due with our hard earned tax dollars. The 100,000 miles of oil tanker routes alone cost the U.S. government at least $500 billion annually by modest estimates. Subsidies for the US oil industry are over $50 trillion. There is about 460 billion barrels of oil in the Arabian Gulf, versus about 20 billion barrels in the US. In 2007 the US Government, acting in our name authorized, appropriated, and obligated $30 billion for diplomacy and $975 billion more or less, for war. For what we have spent on the Iraq war, we could have given every one of the billion people who live on less than $1 a day a free mobile phone for life, and instantly helped them connect and create additional wealth. The potential of this idea has already been brilliantly demonstrated with the success of Iqbal Qadirs 36 research and Grameenphone concept in rural Bangladesh. When you make $1 a day, getting to $3 a day is a really big deal, with hundreds of billions left over for clean water, food, and shelter. For a fraction of what we spend protecting the pipelines, we can energize a renewable energy revolution while empowering the poor to become productive citizens all over the world. With the actions of big oil to date, by their logic, it would seem that those kinds of socialist ideas only makes sense to those of us who are not directly proting by it. By modest estimates, global wars for the control of oil production and distribution from Iraq, Afganistan and Libya account for $50Billion per each day. Where does all that money go? Well, my friend who just got back from Iraq recently told me that it costs $25 per each shirt to be washed from the exclusive laundry service contractor stationed there.
I think most of us can deduce the motives with any educated guess. Just like coal and nuclear, oil employs many of us either directly or indirectly. Oil money runs the US government and the Pentagon. The economics of war that keeps defense contracts creating jobs and hard working men and women who give up their lives to run the fools errand they have to reconcile their souls for, is not just dependent on oil, but has a vested interest in keeping the devastation going. War is good for business for the old energy world order. Without war, the economics of oil interests that employs our politicians and their war machine37 cannot continue. Courtesy: Thinksquad.net
Oil is dirty, ugly, cancerous and it is becoming more scarce. Still, without the oil equation, the current economic system would collapse. Trying to stop the centuries of conditioning to keep energy scarce by stating the facts is about as good as trying to tell a starving person about how nutritiously unhealthy, and loaded with trans fats, the rst meal they have received in days might be! They would not care, and neither would everyone on the value chain that currently depends on oil for their livelihood. The facts that I have stated here are nothing new. The documented damage is readily available at our ngertips, yet the machine of the modern economy cannot imagine functioning without it. Stopping oil means stopping war, and stopping war is something we have much wishful thinking about, but no actionable schemas or accepted economic solutions for. So, for now the business of war continues...What else is good for business? Clean natural gas of course! Lets take a whiff...
Oh, the bloated belligerence of that frackin gas!

What the frac is goin on? 38 Starts the chorus for a public service video on Propublica.org. The informative short video tries to educate the public of the associated contamination risks, including the common problem of gas getting into the water supply to where your tap water catches on re! Natural gas is the next big promise of the old energy world order, but it too comes at a huge cost! In the 1920s, the discovery of large underground reserves of methane was a cheaper alternative to coal gas. Since it wasnt manufactured, it was called natural gas, and the name stuck. Methane (CH4), though naturally occurring comes with its own set of toxicity management issues including being responsible for about a fth of the greenhouse effect.39 Methane is 21 times more polluting than CO2. Mass media ads and stories today portray gas drilling as the ultimate win-win: a new, 100+ year supply of clean-burning fuel, a risk-free alternative to the Americas dependence on foreign oil. The next 10 years promises that we will use the latest fracking technology to drill hundreds of thousands of new wells next to our cities, rivers and watersheds. Promises of a revenue boost makes it even more attractive to the cash-strapped state governments, with the much-needed jobs that drilling is expected to bring; especially to poor, rural areas. The reality with natural gas though is anything but this easily attainable picture of prosperity. It takes nothing short of brute force to extract natural gas from the earth. Millions of gallons of chemical-laden water mixed with sand, under enough pressure to peel the paint off of your car are pumped into the ground, pulverizing a layer of rock that holds billions of small bubbles of gas.40 Drilling companies of course assure us that the destructive forces from the fracturing process, including the toxic chemicals that is often needed to keep the liquid owing, remain safely sealed as much as a mile or more
beneath the earth, far below drinking water wells and the natural environment. However, the year long investigative report from Propublica,41 The United States Geological Survey Report,42 and even the Department of Energys own SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee report 43 shows a very different picture. A grim reality of hidden environmental costs that far outweigh the anticipated benets. For example, it is unclear how far the tiny ssures that radiate through the bedrock from hydraulic fracturing might reach, or whether they can connect underground passageways or open cracks into groundwater aquifers that could allow the chemicals to seep into drinking water. It is also not certain whether the chemicals, such as benzene, which are known carcinogens, can be properly contained by either the well structure underground or by the people, pipelines and trucks that handle it on the surface. It is very fuzzy on how the huge amounts of waste from the process can be safely disposed of. The lack of scientic certainty about hydraulic fracturing can be traced in part to the drilling industrys success in persuading Congress to leave regulation of the process to the states, which often lack the resources and funding to do complex studies of underground geology. Consequently, regulations vary wildly across the country and many basic questions remain. There are over a thousand reports 44 from the Propublica study alone, of serious water contamination from drilling across the country, both from surface spills and underground seepage. The study also found dozens of homes in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado45 where this seepage into the drinking water supply have been clearly documented. There is also the enormous amounts of water needed for fracking.46 The U.S. government estimates that companies will drill at least 32,000 new gas wells annually47 by 2012. That could mean more than 100 billion gallons of hazardous uids will be used and disposed of each year if existing techniques, which often involve 4 million gallons of water per
well, are used. Proposals for new regulations that might prevent these problems usually lead to a ght that devolves into choices between turning on the lights or having clean drinking water; getting rich or staying poor. Is that really a choice? In many cases, the chemical wastewater cocktail is hauled by trucks to remote wastewater processing plants. These treatment plants dont routinely test for most of the chemicals the wastewater contains and may not be equipped to remove them. Currently, the plants also cannot remove the high levels of TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) found in drilling wastewater, a mixture of salts, metals and minerals that can increase the salinity of fresh water streams and interfere with the biological treatment process at sewage treatment plants, allowing untreated waste into waterways. Waterways that supply drinking water to at least 27 million Americans, including most of the residents of Philadelphia and New York City! If this is the situation in the U.S. where public scrutiny and regulatory disclosure is openly available, we can only imagine the horrible atrocities awaiting the health and well being of the people in countries with less transparency and newly found natural gas reserves. Israel, for example is now planning to position itself as an energy exporter and thus a stronger power player in its current precarious place in the Middle East.48 Regardless of the obvious excitement of the prot potential that investment reporters are boasting about these days, any activity that can assault the earths natural geological balance and risk our already mismanaged drinking water supplies should throw up red ags! Beyond the documented environmental damage and water poisoning, there is also new conclusive evidence that points to land instability and earthquakes as a direct result of fracking! The United States Geological Survey recently released a report 49 that not only conrms the direct link, but also accounts
for multiple incidents including over 50 in the state of Oklahoma alone, a location never known be an earthquake region. How much are those prots really worth when we cannot yet fathom the full magnitude of the health risks associated with the poisoning of our bodies and the destruction of our environment to follow? The devastation is so obvious that the oil and gas industry often do not deny these facts off the record though it is in their best interest to sidestep the issue publicly. The big oil and gas companies often deect these arguments as a necessary evil we need to put up with now until we can supply the world with so called clean nuclear power. Nuclear, is by far the most dangerous obsession. In 1972, a report on the Control of Pollution was presented to the Secretary of State for the Environment in England. The summary of that report issues a very clear warning: The evident danger is that man may have put all his eggs in the nuclear basket before he discovers that a solution cannot be found. There would then be powerful political pressures to ignore the radiation hazards and continue using the reactors which had been built. It would be only prudent to slow down the nuclear power program until we have solved the waste disposal problem...Many responsible people would go further. They feel that no more nuclear reactors should be built until we know how to control their wastes. Unfortunately, we all know how this warning has been adhered to...
Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons
So then what about nuclear?

The HUGE 8.8 magnitude earthquake that jolted northeast Japan followed by a tsunami on March 11, 2011, may just have changed our minds about nuclear power forever. If not technically, denitely emotionally. The Daiichi plant tragedy at Fukushima and the consequent investigations that followed have been turning up facts ever since that seriously questions the viability of a nuclear power strategy anywhere in the world.
The deaths, suffering and the other heart wrenching human stories of radiation levels making it too dangerous for people to return to their homes, radioactive sludge seeping into sewage systems 100s of kilometers away,50 or the widespread food contamination that makes us rethink that order of imported sushi are the obvious fallouts. Watching the destruction story still playing out on the web has serious effects on our energy strategy consciousness. Unlike previous incidents like The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters from the pre-Internet era, both the environmental and human accounts remain visible and permanent beyond the sparse news coverage typical of these horric events. So now the practical implications of generating nuclear power within an aging industry that has systematically minimized their safety and regulatory checks in favor of quarterly prots and control are routinely scrutinized in the public forum. Yet, for all the scrutiny in the public forum, the reality of nuclear proliferation both for power generation and defense strategy continues... A quick Google search reveals the story of the 103 aging reactors in the U.S. still running 20-40 years beyond their original 40 year life spans. With the help of Congress, the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) continues rubber stamping of these relics (currently, 50 licenses renewed, none declined). Known spent pool leaks with strontium-90 and tritium that are leaking into our tributaries rivers, with the increased risks of terrorist attack on these reactors are largely ignored. The regulatory decision is to still keep these aging reactors running past the year 2050 no matter how much and how often host communities cried foul. To put the icing on the radioactive cake, the nuclear industrys lobbying arm (NEI) and CASEnergy was created as a nonprot to sell the idea of Green Nuclear to the masses using Peter Moore (formally of Greenpeace) and Christine Todd Whitman former head of the US EPA for additional credibility. As long as a reactor is not being built in their own backyards, the citizens seem to be foolishly jumping onto the nuclear
bandwagon in the name of ending Global Warming. For a while, that seemed to be working, and otherwise smart people bought into this idea until Fukushima stirred up their dormant doubts. The core technical problem with nuclear technology is the waste product created during the ssion process in nuclear reactors. Without getting into the complex technical details, here is the lowdown on how nuclear power works: It starts with uranium, an ore found in the ground. This is the source fuel to start what is called nuclear ssion. Fission is the splitting the nucleus or center of a heavy ssionable atom (the Uranium), whereby a tremendous amount of energy is released as heat. This heat energy boils the water that makes steam to turn a huge generator turbine. The generator produces the electricity no differently than burning fossil fuels or using solar to heat the water to turn the respective turbines. The nuclear advantage is about the force and concentration of the initial energy released with no visible emissions like coal smoke in the air. The real problem is what to do with the ssionable material once the nucleus is split and it gets used up. The remaining material is the stuff we refer to as radioactive or atomically unstable, blasting off invisible particles that can seriously mess up the atoms that you, me and everything around us including stuff we eat and drink are made of. The implications are often unknown, but its a good bet that it will kill, maim or worse for an indenite length of time! The common approach to managing this material is to rst repurpose it for another go in the reactor by turning it into a fuel. The MOX or mixed oxide fuel is pretty nasty stuff. Its a not so tasty cocktail of plutonium blended with natural uranium plus the reprocessed or depleted uranium from the initial reactions. It gets replaced about every three years or so, and the old rods that hold the MOX have no real place to go.
It cant be recycled, it denitely cannot be dumped anywhere on earth or the atmosphere if life wants to exist here, so it gets safely stored until scientists can gure out how to reuse it sometime in the future...in other words nuclear is and never has been either renewable nor sustainable. So we should switch to something else, right? Unfortunately, there are again jobs, prots, and political powers at stake. So despite the obvious risks illustrated by the news coverage of the Fukushima disaster, the safety fails at Southern California Edisons San Onofre51 and Nebraskas Fort Calhoun52 plants, the economic and political interests of the entire nuclear industry from Uranium suppliers to IT and equipment manufacturers are trying whatever they can to keep the twentieth century promise of a nuclear powered future alive. Again, the press releases and news stories are out. Now they are ranging from unique new methods to whitewashing the existing risks of safety, cost and waste management. For example, the Chinese have now claimed a new process for reprocessing spent Uranium 53 so that the same quantity can produce over 60 times the yield than currently possible. The details of course are condential and not accessible to the scientic community at large. In another recent (2011) story on New Scientist, a solution using laser enrichment 54 has been described to signicantly reduce the amount of energy required to process the Uranium. It seems that conventional enrichment techniques require large amounts of energy to increase the concentration of U-235 from its natural abundance in rock of 0.7 per cent to the roughly 3.6% needed for use in light-water reactors, or the 20% used in ssion bombs. Laser techniques promise much better results because they can better select U-235 atoms, meaning that far less power is required. The details of the process have not been made public either. No matter how the industry tries to greenwash nuclear, the fact is that it produces radioactive elements, and there is nothing we know how to do that can reduce their radioactivity once we have created them.
No chemical reaction, no physical interference can reduce it. Only time. Given that the half life of the waste product of Carbon-14 is at least 5,900 years, it will take at least that long to just have the radioactivity alone to be about half of what it was before. No matter what the half-life is, some radiation continues almost indenitely and there is nothing we know to do about it. There is no place on earth to dispose of this, not even in the deepest depths of the oceans. Plankton, algae and many sea creatures that live there absorb this stuff by a factor of a thousands and in some cases, over a million. Imagine how that travels up the food chain to us! Then there is the idea of using the Space Elevator.55 to dispose of the radioactive byproduct of nuclear ssion. This is the ultimate Space Elevator concept via Wikimedia Commons sweeping of the waste under the (space) rug answer to all objections about radioactive and other waste we simply do not know how to recycle or even just dispose of. The basic idea of the space elevator started in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, who proposed a tensile structure like a string tethered to the Earth by a counterweight on the ground that can send safely packaged waste into our orbit. Since Tsiolkovskys time, the design has gone through many modications, but what happens to these objects once they are in our orbit are rarely questioned. In reality, even if the trash can be taken out successfully, the laws of physics will inevitably make them spin around our orbit at 27,000 kilometers per hour, which is 10 times faster than a bullet from a high powered rie!56
So much for the future of space exploration if our spacecrafts cant even risk getting out of orbit dodging radioactive cannonballs... Still, there seems to be some hope being promoted now for nuclear. New research, funding and innovation around Nuclear Fusion Power57 is emerging and some of it has a hint of promise. Fusion is energy released by forcing atomic nuclei together, the same process that powers the sun. The primary fuel for fusion is derived from ordinary water. To achieve the fusion power as described in the American Security Project white paper called the ASP report,58 the United States would need to invest approximately $35 billion over a period of about 15 years. Interestingly however, large scale expensive fusion as proposed explicitly excludes possible innovations from room temperature fusion, which does not need to use radioactive catalysts and has a potential to be innitely cheaper.59 That begs the question about whether government subsidized fusion solutions are about powering our future or powering prots in favor of centralized control of our energy resources. There are also stories of individual citizen scientists like Richard Hull, who has created a home made fusion reactor60 or the idea of a nuclear powered car61 to capture our imaginations, but the reality of fusion power is not without risk. The large ux of high-energy neutrons in a reactor will make the structural materials radioactive. The radioactive inventory at shutdown may be comparable to that of a ssion reactor, but there are some important differences. The half-life of the radioisotopes produced by fusion tend to be less than those from ssion, so that the inventory decreases more rapidly. Unlike ssion reactors, whose waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, most of the radioactive material in a fusion reactor would be the reactor core itself, which would be dangerous for about 50 years, and low-level waste another 100. Although this waste will be considerably more radioactive during those 50 years than ssion waste, the very short half-life makes the process very
attractive, as the waste management is fairly straightforward. By 300 years the material would have the same radioactivity as coal ash. Still, no matter how we rationalize and justify it, the truth is that nuclear is not and never was a truly sustainable solution. Beyond the obvious radioactive waste management problem, the reactors themselves cannot be dismantled for twenty to thirty years. They will remain standing for centuries to come, if not thousands of years silently leaking radioactivity into the air, water and earth. The number of reactor locations near fault lines exponentially elevate the risks with impending earthquakes, not to mention wars, unrest and other man made disruptions. To exist on a shared cosmic plane in disharmony with physical laws is a ticking time bomb at best. The 25,000+ years it takes the radioactive byproducts of nuclear ssion power to become inert cant ever be viable by any stretch of reason. Fusion on the other hand looks to be more promising, but it too carries some risks with similar materials disposal issues in the shorter term. Fusion may be the lesser risk and it remains to be seen if it can be a somewhat more viable and sustainable option. Still, the biohazards are still biohazards even if the potential to reduce their exposure time is signicantly shorter than its predecessors. However, as Dr. Karl Z. Morgan62 from Oak Ridge Labs had emphasized, the damage may seem subtle now, but it will denitely escalate with the deterioration of all kinds of organic qualities. From our mobility to fertility to the efciency of our sensory organs, the smallest doses over time can have catastrophic compounded effects! By the way, Dr. K.Z. Morgan was the biggest proponent of nuclear power early in his career from the late 1940s, but then in the late 60s and early 70s did a full 180 recant on his professional opinion when he realized the magnitude of the dangers of nuclear generation. Having spent his entire life dedicated to this subject, his deeply informed insights were spent for
the rest of his life trying to educate us on the grave impending dangers until his death in 1999. So, before we get too excited at the possibilities of repurposing existing nuclear plants for switching to fusion or hydrogen power, Dr. Morgans warnings should remind us that just the idea of replacing oil, gas and coal with something that looks less polluting just because emissions arent visible, is not only foolish, its more dangerous to our existence than anything else we could possibly do to ourselves and our planet at the moment.
Radioactive Splatter | Artist: Domen Colja
Why Does This Desperation for Destruction Delude Us? The existence of the daily damages of this primitive dirty energy world order was apparent to all of us well before the magnitude revealed from the examples presented. We can sense that the pace of the polluting damage is far greater than we can see, but yet we still continue our business as usual. There is no sane explanation that can possibly rationalize the actions of our institutional leaders or the rest of us with the information that is now available. Yet wars, pollution and the systematic destruction of the natural world in the name of progress continues. Wars are about economics, although the ruling elite have always sold us on their noble motivations like selfdefense, religion, nationalism or the spreading of freedom and democracy. Americas foreign policies and current occupations make this fact evident that most of the world can see except for maybe a few gullible Americans. The game is to control the worlds fossil fuels, which now power the world economy. Why do we do this when we know that our industrialized civilization will collapse unless non-fossil-fuel energy sources are discovered and used? Every civilization that has perished ran out of energy and ours is on the same path. Except this time we really cant afford to. Civilizations are no longer restricted to geographic locations like the Roman empire, it now affects all of us on this entire planet!
A Crisis of Conscience Today, leaders of nations, corporations and global institutions insist on stories that focus on crisis, competition and disparities between us to drive action. They engage us in ongoing wars,63 discrimination, blatant misspending of common resources like retirement funds 64 (Described in detail in the book: The Retirement Heist) as if they were only theirs to consume and waste. We encourage all activity that separates us in the quest for individual signicance by stockpiling resources for future use in the hopes of personal fulllment at any expense including those of others. Ironically, this future never materializes for the benet of all, and yet we continue to bet on outcomes that create economic distortions of reality like a money supply that grows by speculation of future earnings by a factor of thousands while our ability to produce with existing material resources remain relatively constant. Should we still continue to believe these stories despite the evidence to the contrary? Despite the historic evidence, this tendency towards economic centralization and scaling is a power metaphor that no longer pays tangible dividends even though money may accumulate in the bank accounts of those exploiting this game now in play. Governments today are going broke in a very public way around the world, yet the facade of increased consumer spending to guarantee economic viability continues.
The energy producers from oil and gas to utilities are investing heavily in mass utility scale renewable energy farms using dated technologies like photovoltaics and wind turbines and biofuels. Almost as much as they are investing in the marketing of these initiatives to smokescreen continuing the practices of resource depletion with coal, oil, gas and most dangerously nuclear. The events of the past have already put the writing on the wall, but all efforts to protect the beast that feeds the industrial age paradigm of prot still continue. It is actually sad. The inevitability of the unbearable costs to maintain control while scaling is built-in. If you have a resource that you do not want to share freely because you think that it is scarce, you will spend more energy to protect it than to replenish it. To protect gold, you rst need to invest in a safe. To protect the safe, you need a security system. To ensure your security system will not fail, you need insurance. To ensure that your insurance stays valid, you need to show strength so that no one will attempt to take your stuff. Meanwhile, to maintain these layers of protection, you are continually spending the gold to keep it up, and you are spending it faster than your ability to nd more. You can extend your security network to your neighbors in exchange for some of their gold, but to ensure that they will not take yours, you again spend more on protecting what you have versus what you can get.
That is the irony of centralized growth. You have to pay to protect and you will eventually come to a point of diminishing returns where either your protection will turn against you, or stop protecting you and all your gold becomes community property. Interestingly, that is exactly where we are now in the global economic stage. Feeding the beast of innite consumption based prosperity has led to hemorrhaging military expenditure where for every dollar spend on defense yields mere pennies in actual prosperity for its citizens. National and local governments cant afford to feed their bloated bureaucracies yet cant afford to trim them either and put more unemployed people on the streets who cannot deliver the tax revenue needed to continue delivering the infrastructure services. Like a drug addict enslaved to refreshing their junk supply, they spend more and get less with every passing day past the inection point where their economic imperialism reached diminishing returns. They are now at the mercy of the controlling interests like the energy industry, utilities and those bankrollers of the world economy, who call the shots that raise the push for prots and future risks simultaneously. Governments have little choice now but to outsource its services to the private sector. Technologies from the private sector like email makes venerable institutions like the post ofce obsolete, and the power shifts to the more efcient physical mail carriers like DHL, UPS and FedEx. In the world of energy production, its again the same story. Regulators only have a thin veneer of perceived policy authority to ensure equitable production and distribution of energy, while energy companies focus on their stakeholders bottom line at the expense of safety as we have recently experienced with nuclear power plants from Fukushima to Fort Calhoun in Nebraska.65
Yet the race continues...
Big problems are now calling in big favors and big budgets for the next big solutions. Will they work? Who cares? As long as its protable. Prot. Prot. Prot. That is the prevalent mantra that is supposed to fuel our future. That is the only religion with a global audience. That is the only concern we have deluded ourselves with. In our world now, fossil fuels are the energy producers of choice but all of them are starting to run out. We can continue to test our theories against the inevitability at the risk of our healthy and prosperous lives but as history has shown us, it is an unwise path with unknown consequences, the magnitude of which we have yet to fathom. The energy within its particles will go right back into the universe to serve as a different type of energy. For that is the fate of all things. Nothing ends and nothing begins; forms may change but everything is made out of pieces of the things that came before. Energy does not replenish itself, like water it can be used too quickly or too wastefully. Energy cannot be destroyed or created, but can be wasted. When we found what we thought was an unlimited supply of energy, we never thought of the damage the waste might cause but now we know better. Everything has a limit. As we stuff ourselves with food thats slowly Source: Business Insider killing us while disrupting the nature of everything around us to believe that we are living better, we have inadvertently manipulated the energy of everything around us that was keeping the delicate balance in check. Energy ows from one point to another and every link in the chain is affected when one part of the ow is disrupted. Yet now, a culture of mass disruption of energy ows has become known as innovation, while true innovations that change the nature of things are called disruptive. Innovation is never disruptive in nature. Innovation is simply adapting to changing conditions and its just plain evolution. So what are we thinking?
The energy now we use is not from some mystical place in the universe that would never run dry, but instead it is. It is and it can from ourselves, our planet and our sun. The reckless depletion of natures capital as if it was income is now meeting with disasters. Disasters that are both created by our driving forces of greed and envy and disasters that are the indirect results of natures intolerance for directly blocking her ows for our immediate gains. Because we believed ourselves to be above the mortal chains of the universe, because we forgot the most basic laws of the universe:
We are not a separate part of it, we are in all of it.
.. End of Sample ..
Read this full book in print, ebook, pdf formats. The 528page* Print-On-Demand book is now available on CreateSpace BUY IT NOW PRINT ON DEMAND EBook versions are available on The Kindle Store, Apple iBookstore & more very soon Facebook.com/onetherevolution
*With some charts and graphics not available on the eBook formats. One early reader called it two awesome books in one!
The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution
THE DESPERATION FOR DEMAND The Politics of Pollution
Section Endnotes
1
Scott Friedman/Greenavise: 1.05 Billion tons of coal up in smoke-alternative energy needed: http://is.gd/jypPMa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/index.html Negative effects of burning coal and other fossil fuels: http://is.gd/OtmHtq with research reference from: Stephen J. Jay, MD, The Public Health Impact of a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) in Indiana, p. 3 Scientic American: 12/13/2007: Coal Ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste: http://is.gd/QkUVdn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicle http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/13/energy-dept-1m-electric-cars/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F http://www.haloipt.com/ Smartplanet: Is this 400 mile battery for real? http://is.gd/QxmB5o Plugincars: T27 is the most efcient car in the world: http://is.gd/tyysfb Wired: Backyard Fuel Cell : http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.03/play.html?pg=9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery Treehugger: wind and solar Sanya charger: http://is.gd/OSef4T The Heins Effect: http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1890.cfm The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution
2 3 4
6 7 8 9
10 11 12
13 14 15
16
Union of Concerned Scientists report 2009 (pdf): Do we really need new coal and nuclear power plants? http://is.gd/Ne6CO6 Greentechmedia: Coal generation drops to 30 year lows 7/27/11: http://is.gd/oa9mSS http://www.mitenergyclub.org/assets/2009/3/2/Coal_Fact_Sheet.pdf http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/oilconsumption.html http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/liquid_fuels.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drilling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Lightman http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7831 http://www.oilslick.com/Commentary/?id=2932&type=1 Richard C. Duncan, PhD: The peak of oil production: http://dieoff.org/page224.htm CBS: How many offshore rigs are there? http://is.gd/bcFQFQ AP: Gulf awash in 27,000 abandoned gas and oil wells: http://is.gd/XnrZaH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Tickell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_(lm) Nola: Gulf oil spill doc 'The Big Fix' screens in Cannes: http://is.gd/Bdq5qN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit http://www.mskcc.org/ The New U.S.-British oil imperialism: http://www.hermes-press.com/impintro1.htm http://vimeo.com/harmondesign/oild http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqbal_Quadir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iran Video: http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking http://www.science.org.au/nova/118/118key.html Propublica: Naural gas drilling: what we dont know: http://is.gd/P2TYq7 http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking Oilprice.com: U.S. government conrms link between earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) : http://is.gd/EJUR5r DOE SEAB Report: http://is.gd/f05Rqf http://www.propublica.org/article/the-story-so-far-gas-drillings-environmental-threat
17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44
http://www.propublica.org/article/ofcials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gasdrilling-426
45 46 47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing
http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-uswater-supplies-1113
48 49
http://www.investingdaily.com/id/18232/israels-huge-natural-gas-discovery.html Oilprice.com: U.S. government conrms link between earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) : http://is.gd/EJUR5r Commondreams.org: Yet more fallout: Japans radioactive sewage 8/31/11 http://is.gd/LLD0Y6 CBS News: SoCals nuclear plants safety questioned http://is.gd/TERM87 RT: Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant safety under scrutiny: http://is.gd/ZadGMO The Guardian: China claims new nuclear technology: http://is.gd/APuA0g New Scientist: Brieng/Security fears of laser enrichment : http://is.gd/w4YKmR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator The New Universe and the Human Future (location 1131 of 3051) http://new-universe.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
50
51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58
http://americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/White-Paper-on-FusionFinal-21.pdf
59 60 61 62 63 64 65
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion Make: Homemade nuclear fusor: http://is.gd/EE5dDU Inhabitat: Laser Power Systems cars fueled by nuclear power: http://is.gd/RRZm20 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Z._Morgan http://warcosts.com/panetta/ Reuters: Who stole Americas pensions: http://is.gd/hmEr1g Examiner: Flooded Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant 4 failures: http://is.gd/csKwv9
.. End of Sample ..
Read the rest of the book in print, ebook, pdf formats. The full 528page* Print-On-Demand book is now available on CreateSpace BUY IT NOW PRINT ON DEMAND EBook versions are available on The Kindle Store, Apple iBookstore & more very soon Facebook.com/onetherevolution
*With some charts and graphics not available on the eBook formats. One early reader called it two awesome books in one!

(Section 1, Full Chapter 2 Sampler) - ONE: The New Abundant Energy Revolution & The Power of You

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Section 1, Full Chapter 2 Sampler) - ONE: The New Abundant Energy Revolution & The Power of You

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FR SA p EE M ter 1 PL .

Author & Designer

RAY PODDER (Rahul Kumar Poddar)

The New Abundant Energy Revolution & The Power of You

2011, Ray Podder First Published: 1/2/2012

for every one of us

The Power of You

RESPECTS & REFEREN C E S __________________ ____ 407

The Scarcity of Sanity

THE INDELIBLE IMAGE OF

SWATTING FIGHTER PLANES ATOP THE

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 66

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 67

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 69

Beyond Petroleum? Beyond Belief!

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 70

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 77

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 78

Oh, the bloated belligerence of that frackin gas!

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 82

Courtesy: Wikimedia Commons

So then what about nuclear?

Radioactive Splatter | Artist: Domen Colja

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 90

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 91

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 92

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 93

Yet the race continues...

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 94

We are not a separate part of it, we are in all of it.

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution 96

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution

THE DESPERATION FOR DEMAND The Politics of Pollution

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution

The Scarcity of Sanity | D E S P E R A T I O N F O R D E M A ND : The Politics of Pollution

You might also like

RESPECTS & REFEREN C E S ______________ 407