Round Up Post

Let’s start the fun with the CDC Study Ordered by our Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama, that Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative. Don’t expect reality to get in way of their “progressive” political agenda this time either.

BHO’s former Sec. of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton yelled at a congressman in a briefing just after the Benghazi terror attack for calling it a terror attack.  Again, reality didn’t fit the Obama political agenda, so reality had to be denied.

While Barack Hussein Obama tries to spin away his very real scandals by calling them “phony,” Jim O’Sullivan correctly identifies Obama’s so called “economic recovery” as the real phony.

What isn’t “phony” about the Obama economy is “Slow GDP growth, lagging job creation, constricted free markets, ballooning deficits and debt, growing and counterproductive regulation, crippling taxation, and the penalization of small business…”

On the topic of the Obama economy, the CBO reports that our Dear Leader broke a new record, four years of federal deficit over $1 trillion. That is a trillion dollar plus deficit for each of the first four years of his “occupy the White House” golf tour.  The current US debt is $16.9 Trillion and growing.

Forbes reports that the German Green Energy Bluster Running Out Of Wind.  It seems that unreliable wind produced energy can’t compete without massive government subsidies. Combine that with their policy of shutting down carbon neutral nuclear power plants that deliver steady energy at a lower cost than the very expensive wind turbines, and you have rapidly rising energy costs and cold German winter on the way.

No surprise here, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is throwing Tony Weiner under the bus for his sex scandal.  Mentioning her husband’s sex scandals would be in bad taste, so ya, he had a lot of them.  HRC responded to those by attacking the women who dared bring up her husband’s sexual harassment.  Yup, if it wasn’t for double standards, democrats would have no standards.

Monday Book Pick: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy

April 22, 2013 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: energy, Environment, Nuclear Power 

Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens

In honor of Lenin’s birthday, I’m going to repeat the Monday Book Pick from May 11, 2009. An environmentalist opposed to Nuclear Energy did some honest research and came to the conclusion that only Nuclear Power can provide the base load of clean electricity needed. Actual science trumps rhetoric.

Monday Book Pick Archive

Morning Roundup

March 14, 2011 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: energy, Nuclear Power, Politics 

Let’s review:

It didn’t take long for the left’s anti-science bias use the natural disasters in Japan to push their agenda:

Let’s review the facts of the matter, the nuclear power plant safety systems *survived the 8.9 magnitude earthquake*.

That is worth repeating. The nuclear power plant safety systems still functioned after a 8.9 magnitude earthquake.

It took an 8.9 magnitude earthquake, closely followed by a major tsunami to take them out.

Meanwhile, in California, dozens of people are killed by a natural gas explosion because the gas company can’t keep track of the type of pipe they have buried.

If you want to donate to a relief group that will help the Japanese people, check out Americares or the American Red Cross.

Don’t worry, our Dear Leader isn’t missing his regular 18 holes of golf because of the crisis in Japan.

Former democrat President Bill Clinton is channeling Sarah Palin now, and not how you would think.  Mr. Clinton is speaking out against our Dear Leader‘s ban on off shore drilling.

James O’Keefe exposed racism at NPR, which most of the MSM is strangely (or not so strangely) quiet about.

Liberals and socialists are mean-spirited, but we knew that…

 

Good advice from Dr. Pournelle

February 22, 2011 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: economy, energy, Nuclear Power, Politics 

Dr Pournelle writes the following words of wisdom.

we must expand domestic energy production, and we ought not a priori rule out any of the methods: coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and yes, wind, solar, and biofuels. However, we need to have some priorities here. The urgent need is massive amounts of energy now, both for static installations — factories, homes, street lights, and so forth — and transportation. For static installations the primary fuel now is coal, followed by oil (for heating homes). For transportation we burn oil, much of which must be imported. We don’t import coal.

The first order of business, then, is to increase domestic oil production and refining, but that’s a temporary measure, and has environmental consequences. We can tolerate some smog better than we can tolerate bankruptcy, but we’d prefer to avoid both. Over time we can phase in natural gas, which is also a good source for electric generation. Note that it takes energy to develop and produce sustainable energy sources: with cheap enough energy, the price of solar cells will fall. Solar cells produce low voltage energy, good for supplementing central power grids. Solar electric is very useful for home lighting and air conditioning and other on-site uses, and leaving out the conversion systems for putting that trickle into the grid makes the initial installation cheaper as well. If the overall cost of solar cells is low enough, there will be more such uses.

And of course when we mention electric power, the gorilla in the parlor is nuclear: we have the technology, and we ran the most expensive destructive test in history at Three Mile Island, where we learned that even when everything goes wrong the costs are economic, not a public health disaster. France and Japan have demonstrated nuclear’s long term cost effectiveness.

Our first order of business ought to be to reverse Jimmy Carter’s disastrous stoppage of spent fuel recycling, and start building nuclear power plants. Cheap electricity won’t free us from the billion a day we export to buy oil, but it will go a long way toward letting us develop the means to use natural gas and domestic oil to make us North America energy independent. Once we’re on that path we can have a good look at how biofuels fit into the pattern of sustainable energy; but that, I would say, is nowhere near the top of the priority list. In A Step Farther Out I showed that biofuels can be useful. I fear I didn’t make it clear enough that it wasn’t the top priority. Of course when I wrote that I didn’t know just how much energy trouble we would be in, although I should have: After all, those were the times when I wrote my major series “Our Looming Energy Crisis.”

Cheap energy is good for the economy. The 90’s economy was floated on cheap oil (around $20-$25 a barrel), and a new economic boom could be floated on cheap electricity. The trick is that you need much more than solar & wind can produce. For that you have to go nuclear.

If anyone is concerned about the environmental impact of increasing the number of Nuclear Power plants, get thee to a library and read Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy by Gwyneth Cravens.  This book is by an environmentalist opposed to Nuclear Energy, but  did actual, honest research on the subject and came to the conclusion that only Nuclear Power can provide the base load of clean electricity needed. Actual science trumps rhetoric.  This was my Monday Book Pick for May 11, 2009 BTW…

China is building over 200 hundred new nuclear power plants

December 4, 2010 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: economy, energy, Environment, Nuclear Power 

Given the huge number of horrifically dirty coal plans the Communist Chinese government has built, this is a good step for the environment.

What we should be doing in the US.  As Dr. Pournelle pointed out:

I have to say it again: cheap energy will cause a boom. The only cheap energy I know of is nuclear. Three Hundred Billion bucks in nuclear power will do wonders for the economy. We build 100 1000 MegaWatt nuclear power plants — they will cost no more than 2 billion each and my guess is that the average cost will be closer to 1 billion each (that is the first one costs about 20 billion and the 100th costs about 800 million). The rest of the money goes to prizes and X projects to convert electricity into mobility.

It’s the Green thing to do. Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore thinks so too:

I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group’s board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter. … Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools — the machete — has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire. … the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

Let’s review that last line again.

Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

If you find a so-called “environmentalist” who is against Nuclear Power, they are either ignorant on the subject matter or a watermelon.

Is Obama going Nuclear?

It seems that our Dear Leader may actually keep one of his promises. According to Townhall.com:

The Obama administration’s planned loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the U.S in almost three decades is part of a broad shift in energy strategy to lessen dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of other fossil fuels blamed for global warming.

President Barack Obama called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” in his Jan. 27 State of the Union speech and followed that by proposing to triple loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. He wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to shift energy policy.

Obama in the coming week will announce the loan guarantee to build the nuclear power plant, an administration official said Friday. The two new Southern Co. reactors to be built in Burke, Ga., are part of a White House energy plan that administration officials hope will draw Republican support.

Yup, safe, clean nuclear energy. Plentiful electrical energy completely free of greenhouse gases.
Also good for the economy, as Dr. Pournelle stated:

I have to say it again: cheap energy will cause a boom. The only cheap energy I know of is nuclear. Three Hundred Billion bucks in nuclear power will do wonders for the economy. We build 100 1000 MegaWatt nuclear power plants — they will cost no more than 2 billion each and my guess is that the average cost will be closer to 1 billion each (that is the first one costs about 20 billion and the 100th costs about 800 million). The rest of the money goes to prizes and X projects to convert electricity into mobility.

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore also thinks it is the ecologically sound thing to do.

I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group’s board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter.

Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools — the machete — has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.

the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

A smart step toward American energy independence.

July 22, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: energy, Environment, Nuclear Power 

The Tennessee Valley Authority is bringing a new Nuclear Reactor on line, on schedule and on budget, in order to provide clean, “carbon free”, electricity in useful quanties, to their customers.

Clean and safe nuclear power is supported as the “green option” by serious leaders of the environmental movement, including Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and Britain’s Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth.

Of course, there are uneducated watermelon groups opposing this step toward clean, American engergy indepence, including the obviously confused “Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.”

The World’s First floating nuclear power plant

It’s not the one the Russians are building. Given the Russian’s record of failure with nuclear reactor’s and generally poor environmental record, any buyer’s are doing so at their own risk.

The world’s first floating nuclear power plant was built in the early 1960s by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. It was the MH-1A Sturgis, a converted WWII Liberty ship. The BBC falsely reported that the Russians were building the first floating nuclear power plant back in 2006, and other news agencies are still repeating their mistake.

Also posted at Urbin Technology.

Government Transparency, Obama Style!

June 3, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Nuclear Power, Our Dear Leader, Politics 

Just how the porkulus money is being spent is something the Obama administration can’t tell us.

Posting “highly confidential safeguards sensitive” documents listing all the civilian nuclear sites and their activities in the United States on the Internet is apparently no problem.

I wish I was making this shit up. The official story is that this was an “accident“.

It would be comforting to think this was just another example of the incompetence that has been the norm for the Obama administration. However, given the mindset of the Obama political appointees who blocked the Justice Department staff lawyers from bringing charges of voter intimidation against the NBPP and by overruling the orders of two federal courts, stopped the State of Georgia from removing non-US citizens form their voter registration rolls, I can see one of those statist political appointee deciding that this is information that should be made available to the public. The actual threat to safety of American Citizens clearly isn’t part of their criteria.

Two interesting bits of energy news

May 31, 2009 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: energy, Environment, Nuclear Power, Politics 

First, the price of oil is going up. It’s over $66 a barrel and show signs of continuing to go up.
Ace thinks that our Dear Leader is going to loose some of his popularity as gas prices climb over $3 a galleon and shoot toward $4 a galleon.
Quite possibly, but then a lot of his supporters, like our Dear Leader, want gas prices over $4 a galleon. They want to kill the SUV and the suburban mom’s best buddy, the minivan. They want solar and wind power generation stations built, but not in their neighborhood.
The GOP should make the most of rising energy costs, and energy costs will rise due to the Cap & Tax scheme going through the democrat controlled congress, by pointing out how our Dear Leader and the democrats are blocking access domestic sources sources like oil, natural gas and coal. They are also blocking the choice of many serious environmentalists, Nuclear Power.
Ace may have a point, since unemployment is continuing to rise, and increased inflation is pretty much a sure thing.

The other bit of energy news comes from Planetizen. It seems that domestic underused natural gas capacity could almost completely replace our current coal-generated electrical energy. Natural gas burns much cleaner than coal and can be used to power motor vehicles as well. Coal can be converted to a liquid fuel, but it is generally less clean than using natural gas.

Bottom line, the spike in energy prices doesn’t have to happen, or at least it doesn’t need to be as bad. The spike will occur because Barack Hussein Obama and the democrats in Congress want higher energy prices to drive their political agenda. If the GOP can’t build a message around that, they are political incompetents who deserve to lose. The only problem with that that American people will pay the price of the democrat’s political agenda with a longer and deeper recession and a declining dollar as inflation climbs.

Next Page »

  • My Tweets

  • Feed Me!