I just read both your rebuttals and there is one thing I must say as one with a Master’s degree. I understand the need for not getting too technical, given that the average American has a high school degree at best and probably reads one book yearly. If the writer were to even use freshmen-level lexicon or terminology, that would isolate the other 80% of the readers. They would lose interest and move on to something else, thus the need for more of a high school level (10-12th grade) approach.

This is something I found out the hard way.

When more details/specifics are released then maybe Susan can write about them. So for now, if this level of writing really gets to you, it might be better for you to stick to scientifically published journals and not blogs.

I just read both your rebuttals and there is one thing I must say as one with a Master’s degree. I understand the need for not getting too technical, given that the average American has a high school degree at best and probably reads one book yearly. If the writer were to even use freshmen-level lexicon or terminology, that would isolate the other 80% of the readers. They would lose interest and move on to something else, thus the need for more of a high school level (10-12th grade) approach.

This is something I found out the hard way.

When more details/specifics are released then maybe Susan can write about them. So for now, if this level of writing really gets to you, it might be better for you to stick to scientifically published journals and not blogs.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/06/obamas-executive-order-enforces-smart-energy/

When I read other people’s rants, I always suspect there is more going on than I can see. Indeed that was the case here with me. Your story was the straw breaking the camel’s back.

I’m just glad that I’m not alone when it comes to raging against the media. I refuse to own a television and am otherwise a harsh media critic. I blame the media for many of society’s ills. The level of responsibility demonstrated comes up way short of the obligation placed by the awesome power of freedom of speech.

Just before reading your column, I read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/02/dan-gillmor-22-rules-news

I find his ideas welcome, but lacking in many ways.

So I am a one-man tough crowd. That seems to be my part in the melodrama.

I am not prepared to apologize for my rant, nor am I willing to say “aw shucks, Susan, you did the best you could”.

The media is in the end a collection of individuals, so if I want to try to help turn the head of the beast, I must end up attacking individual reporters.

While I think you can clearly do better, it occurs to me that you may be a victim of editorial policy. I am aware that cleantechnica’s stated mission includes the statement that readers need not “have an engineering degree” to follow articles. And my sarcasm regarding the lack of editorial control notwithstanding, it seems likely that cleantechnica in fact has no editors and thus you are on your own.

I don’t want to get back to criticism of the article, but it and your response are both much more along the lines of stenography than reporting.

Regurgitating press releases is not reporting. Is there no room in this website’s approach for writers to make some phone calls and to do some research?

And if a website such as this cannot, then who will? Is there no one prepared to provide added value when passing along press releases?

Shoot, I’m in rant mode again, aren’t I? Sigh . . .

The “no engineering degree” stance makes sense to a point. But what I believe you owe your readers is Freshman level stuff.

Have you ever heard of “The Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow? Jacob Bronowski’s “The Identity of Man”?

How much credibility would you personally assign to a book reviewer who betrays an ignorance of the work or even existence of Hemingway or Faulkner or Bronte or Shakespeare or Homer? That’s Freshman level stuff, and that’s the level of omission I found here.

With you having to read two of my rants now, I feel obliged to make you an offer. I would be happy to assist you with future articles, so that you can confidently include enough technical details to satisfy the Freshman-level criteria I think should apply here.

When I read other people’s rants, I always suspect there is more going on than I can see. Indeed that was the case here with me. Your story was the straw breaking the camel’s back.

I’m just glad that I’m not alone when it comes to raging against the media. I refuse to own a television and am otherwise a harsh media critic. I blame the media for many of society’s ills. The level of responsibility demonstrated comes up way short of the obligation placed by the awesome power of freedom of speech.

Just before reading your column, I read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/02/dan-gillmor-22-rules-news

I find his ideas welcome, but lacking in many ways.

So I am a one-man tough crowd. That seems to be my part in the melodrama.

I am not prepared to apologize for my rant, nor am I willing to say “aw shucks, Susan, you did the best you could”.

The media is in the end a collection of individuals, so if I want to try to help turn the head of the beast, I must end up attacking individual reporters.

While I think you can clearly do better, it occurs to me that you may be a victim of editorial policy. I am aware that cleantechnica’s stated mission includes the statement that readers need not “have an engineering degree” to follow articles. And my sarcasm regarding the lack of editorial control notwithstanding, it seems likely that cleantechnica in fact has no editors and thus you are on your own.

I don’t want to get back to criticism of the article, but it and your response are both much more along the lines of stenography than reporting.

Regurgitating press releases is not reporting. Is there no room in this website’s approach for writers to make some phone calls and to do some research?

And if a website such as this cannot, then who will? Is there no one prepared to provide added value when passing along press releases?

Shoot, I’m in rant mode again, aren’t I? Sigh . . .

The “no engineering degree” stance makes sense to a point. But what I believe you owe your readers is Freshman level stuff.

Have you ever heard of “The Two Cultures” by C.P. Snow? Jacob Bronowski’s “The Identity of Man”?

How much credibility would you personally assign to a book reviewer who betrays an ignorance of the work or even existence of Hemingway or Faulkner or Bronte or Shakespeare or Homer? That’s Freshman level stuff, and that’s the level of omission I found here.

With you having to read two of my rants now, I feel obliged to make you an offer. I would be happy to assist you with future articles, so that you can confidently include enough technical details to satisfy the Freshman-level criteria I think should apply here.

Disclosure: I’m not fully unbiased, since I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development (recycled-energy.com), which does this kind of work. But the reason I’m involved is precisely the enormous potential.

Disclosure: I’m not fully unbiased, since I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development (recycled-energy.com), which does this kind of work. But the reason I’m involved is precisely the enormous potential.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/06/obamas-executive-order-enforces-smart-energy/

I make it clear that this is not regular geothermal power by pointing out “It is not a natural source because it would stop once oil extraction stopped. It is created by the process of oil extraction itself.”

How hot is this hot fluid? We’ll see.

Lets all stay tuned for the data promised at the DOE website. I’m certainly an interested party, and I will cover those details when they are out, as promised.

The exact heat or composition (pure water, muddy fluid) doesn’t make a difference as long as it is a liquid hot enough to generate electricity, and presumably Ormat took a look and felt it would work.

I generally try to make it vivid for a general lay person, so use phrases like ‘squeezing oil from rocks’ or ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’, but if you’d rather read the original I link my source at the bottom of the story:

“Washington, D.C. – A unique Department of Energy (DOE) collaboration aims to generate electricity from a geothermal source stemming from oilfield operations.

DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Geothermal Technologies Program will merge and leverage research capabilities to demonstrate low temperature geothermal electric power generation systems using co-produced water from oilfield operations at FE’s Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC).

EERE is providing funding for the purchase of a geothermal electricity producing unit from Ormat Technologies, Inc.

RMOTC will serve as an optimal testing facility for geothermal technologies, while enhancing knowledge sharing between the geothermal and petroleum industries.

With a producing oilfield and long standing expertise with fossil energy, this project provides a unique opportunity for FE to contribute its experience to emerging renewable energy fields.

The system will turn otherwise discarded water into an energy resource. With an estimated ten barrels of hot water co-produced along with each barrel of oil in the United States, there is significant resource potential for this technology.

The electricity produced will be used to power field production equipment.

Operational and performance data for various climate and system configurations will be collected and made available to industry and the public, highlighting the potential of geothermal renewable energy from co-produced water.”

I make it clear that this is not regular geothermal power by pointing out “It is not a natural source because it would stop once oil extraction stopped. It is created by the process of oil extraction itself.”

How hot is this hot fluid? We’ll see.

Lets all stay tuned for the data promised at the DOE website. I’m certainly an interested party, and I will cover those details when they are out, as promised.

The exact heat or composition (pure water, muddy fluid) doesn’t make a difference as long as it is a liquid hot enough to generate electricity, and presumably Ormat took a look and felt it would work.

I generally try to make it vivid for a general lay person, so use phrases like ‘squeezing oil from rocks’ or ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’, but if you’d rather read the original I link my source at the bottom of the story:

“Washington, D.C. – A unique Department of Energy (DOE) collaboration aims to generate electricity from a geothermal source stemming from oilfield operations.

DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Geothermal Technologies Program will merge and leverage research capabilities to demonstrate low temperature geothermal electric power generation systems using co-produced water from oilfield operations at FE’s Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC).

EERE is providing funding for the purchase of a geothermal electricity producing unit from Ormat Technologies, Inc.

RMOTC will serve as an optimal testing facility for geothermal technologies, while enhancing knowledge sharing between the geothermal and petroleum industries.

With a producing oilfield and long standing expertise with fossil energy, this project provides a unique opportunity for FE to contribute its experience to emerging renewable energy fields.

The system will turn otherwise discarded water into an energy resource. With an estimated ten barrels of hot water co-produced along with each barrel of oil in the United States, there is significant resource potential for this technology.

The electricity produced will be used to power field production equipment.

Operational and performance data for various climate and system configurations will be collected and made available to industry and the public, highlighting the potential of geothermal renewable energy from co-produced water.”

I can only assume that cleantechnica’s competent technical writers were unavailable for this story, and that all the editors are on vacation.

“Hot Fluids”? What kind of fluids? How hot?

“Discarded”?? By what means?

“Geothermal”?? Quoting the term does not add clarity, it merely tells us that the writer does not have the ability to properly describe it.

“At the site”? What, only the DOE site? What about at actual production level sites?

“Combined Heat & Power” – Ah, so you’ve heard of it then! How about learning something about it before writing this vacuous piece? For starters, it’s called “recovered energy”, not “geothermal”.

“Used to power field production equipment” – What is the comparison between the resource and the need? Ah, but then you’d have to learn about kilowatts and kilowatt-hours, and you evidently cannot be bothered.

“Literally scraping the bottom of the barrel”? Um, do you know what “literally” means? No, clearly you don’t.

“Squeezing oil out of rocks”? Say WHAT? What kind of oil production does this article refer to, anyway?

I could go on . . .

I don’t like to rant, really I don’t. But my goodness, do we have to wallow in ignorance when it comes to energy reporting? This level of incompetence is getting really old and the energy challenges our society faces are not going to get any easier to report.

At some point, writing like this becomes much more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

I can only assume that cleantechnica’s competent technical writers were unavailable for this story, and that all the editors are on vacation.

“Hot Fluids”? What kind of fluids? How hot?

“Discarded”?? By what means?

“Geothermal”?? Quoting the term does not add clarity, it merely tells us that the writer does not have the ability to properly describe it.

“At the site”? What, only the DOE site? What about at actual production level sites?

“Combined Heat & Power” – Ah, so you’ve heard of it then! How about learning something about it before writing this vacuous piece? For starters, it’s called “recovered energy”, not “geothermal”.

“Used to power field production equipment” – What is the comparison between the resource and the need? Ah, but then you’d have to learn about kilowatts and kilowatt-hours, and you evidently cannot be bothered.

“Literally scraping the bottom of the barrel”? Um, do you know what “literally” means? No, clearly you don’t.

“Squeezing oil out of rocks”? Say WHAT? What kind of oil production does this article refer to, anyway?

I could go on . . .

I don’t like to rant, really I don’t. But my goodness, do we have to wallow in ignorance when it comes to energy reporting? This level of incompetence is getting really old and the energy challenges our society faces are not going to get any easier to report.

At some point, writing like this becomes much more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.

Great initiative, hope that will be accepted.

Great initiative, hope that will be accepted.