Great post!

How are things working out for you these days?

Dear Sir

Subject mater all our the World facing Energy problem So I am try to explain a idea for Old & New Dams / Reservoirs Hydel Civil Design can move in architectural Transition to increase our energy potential Because we are losing heavy quantum of already storage water in our Big Dams to generate past technology now need to convert into New theory of Technology.

Thanks.

with best regards.

That said, this piece was intended as a response to GAIA’s claims regarding “incinerators” or as I prefer to call them, waste-to-energy plants. I can’t speak to the cleanliness or dirtiness of TDF because I just haven’t done enough homework in that area, but with regard to conventional solid waste combustors, I suggest you compare the requirements for WTE plants to those for conventional coal- and even natural-gas fired facilities. WTE plants are the only facilities required to meet Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. There is a world of difference between what is asked of the fossil fuel industries, with their armies of lobbyists, and the waste-to-energy industry, with its single lobbyist (he’s still around, right? Let’s hope so).

All I can really say is to summarize what I have already said, which is that waste-to-energy technology is some of the cleanest clean energy tech around, and has quite a few side benefits to boot. Read up on the latest and greatest if you don’t believe me, I’m sure you can find more around the web if you put a little effort into it.

Secondly, TDF is the fastest growing use of scrap tires. This easy “out” by calling it “fuel” allows the industry to be lax on regulation and more importantly, finding true reutilization such as rubberized asphalt applications? This very fact is what gave your EPA fight weight because there is simply not many markets that have been developed so the over-reliance on TDF is the very thing keeping the industry from advancing alternatives. Thus, agencies like EPA have little choice but to let the industry be for fear of stockpiling. So, my other question is shouldn’t the tire manufacturers and their lobby be working harder towards advancing market development while discouraging growth in TDF?

Methinks if the industry can’t break free of the TDF temptation then Extended Producer Responsibility may be “down the road”, excuse the pun. Organizations like GAIA are advocacy to protect health and social equity, whereas “facts” from your industry should be questionable due to the ulterior motives. Do you really think you are going to publish scientific research that says TDF is harmful?

Instead, I will let our beef stand. You’ve had your chance to prove yourself in writing, and you failed. I won this debate, and I bet every single observer here would agree, even Redmond. Now it’s time to stand up and defend your viewpoint. If you are going to publish masturbatory editorial content, you had better be prepared to back up what you have to say. But now that you have refused to debate, you have just obliterated your final shred of credibility.

Or as we said back in the old school: JUST DEBATE IT.

Oh, and finally: the reason I asked for your client list is so I can know who is funding your “research” and just what kind of skin you have in the game. I can think of no other reason why someone would defend such an indefensible position unless they were on the payroll for Koch Industries or its equivalent. Game over.

Why don’t people want to debate you? Well, as one colleague said, “I don’t have time for this stuff. I have a job.” (Okay, he didn’t use the word ‘stuff’.)

There have been many debates. For example at the American Geophysical Union, the European Geophysical Union, the Offshore Technology Conference, the Society of Petroleum Engineers, and others. Why would people want to host a debate with some netizens who have no particular standing? Especially Pulitzer Prize winners who would have to give up facetime with CEOs and such?

And public debates have a drawback, which is that people can say almost anything, since it is hardly possible to provide full citations. And you will note that, while you have pushed me for data and citations, most of the arguments against me have not included any. And while I recognize that a blog is hardly the place for academic-level publications, even ignoring the many slams, there are a variety of incorrect statements made.

Just as an example, since Russia has just set a new production record, it’s hard to see where it is at a plateau. And Hubbert did not say, in his 1956 article, that production would peak in 2010 at 85 mb/d. He said 2000 at about 35 mb/d. Have you actually read the article, or are you just gussing? Also, Michael Rodgers at PFC supports peak oil, but his superiors have not (http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/07/news/economy/coming_oil_glut.fortune/index.htm
).

Your argument seems to come down to:
Oil is finite, so it must peak at some point.
Some people believe that the peak is near.
The industry is experiencing problems.
Therefore the peak must be near.

The industry has not only been replacing the reserves produced, but recent discoveries in deepwater Brazil, for example, east Africa, west Africa, India, and so forth, suggest that we’ll see further increases in production.

Regarding my client list, why do you want it?.