Obama’s EPA will shut down 28 GW of American Electrical Production

Can you say “rolling brown outs” boys and girls?

Our Dear Leader is once again keeping one of his campaign promises and shutting down electrical power plants that use abundant domestic fuel sources (i.e. coal).

Don’t worry though, as our Dear Leader also promised, there will be plenty of alternative energy brought on line by technological breakthroughs that will more than make up for the 28 GigaWatts being removed from the American electrical grid.

Oh, what’s that?  President Obama isn’t keeping that promise?  Well, at least he tried. OK, wasting a half billion of Tax Payer dollars on the predicted failure of Solyndra doesn’t really count as “trying”, but it did funnel that money in to the hands of big Obama donors!

Use that thought to keep you warm as your electricity cuts out on regular basis because your local power grid can’t sustain a base load.

 

Obama administration’s monetary policies a major cause of rising gas prices

Not a surprise to anyone who has taken a graduate level economics class and pays attention, but since that is probably a small slice of the population, let’s review.

The Obama administration’s monetary policies have added approximately 56.5 cents to the price of every gallon of gas you pump, according to a report by members of the congressional Joint Economic Committee.

Estimates suggest that had the dollar maintained the value it had when Obama came into office, gasoline would cost approximately $3.40 per gallon instead of around $4 per gallon in many parts of the country.

Here is the short form for those who haven’t studied macro economics.  Oil is traded on the open market with the US dollar being the standard currency used for for that commodity. Our Dear Leader’s monetary policy of just printing money to pay for his massive spending increases ( the so-called “quantitative easing” programs are good examples of this) has caused inflation, which means the US Dollar has less value than it did before.  To make this even simpler, things cost more when you buy things using US dollars.  Not because the value of the item being purchased has gone up. It is because the amount of goods and services a US Dollar can be traded for has gone down.  This includes crude oil.  Your dollar is worth less, so you pay more dollars for things like gasoline, a crude oil product.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke claimed this printing money scheme would actually “grow the economy.” Fed Chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan disagreed, stating that the Obama/Bernake plan would weaken US currency and result in inflation.

Clearly, Volcker and Greenspan were right, and Obama and Bernanke were wrong.

The Obama administration is calling for another round of “”quantitative easing” in spite of the clear and obvious facts of the matter.

Quote of the Day

“…that when it comes to some Democrats and particularly the President, “high gas prices are not an unintended consequence of their policies: it is the means by which they will accomplish their goal.”  Their goal is to raise the price of gasoline so that you reduce your consumption of it.”

Aaron Worthing

Bonus quote from the same article:

“…high gas prices are an economy killer, so even if there is some modest increase in tax income from that tax hike in general, the drag on the economy will mean reduced taxes in other areas.  Again, they are depending on you being too stupid to see through all of this.”

Morning Roundup

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

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…

Biofuel from Coffee grounds

Amazing stuff coffee. In addtion to it’s other amazing properties, including being good for the roses, the grounds can be used to produce biofuel.

The estimates are the coffee ground biodiesel industry could generate as much as $8,000,000 in profits annually using waste from Starbucks stores here in the United States  alone.  Ok, probably less given falling crude oil prices, but I’m still a big fan of any domestic fuel souces.

To add to the overall awesomeness of coffee, at the end of the biodiesel extraction and conversion process, the leftover grounds can be turned into fuel pellets for wood stoves and boilers.

Not only does coffee keep you moving, it can keep your car moving and heats your home!

Originally posted at Urbin Technology

Update: Crude prices have reversed the downward trend that was in place when this article was first posted (December 2008).  They are now pushing $100 a barrel and don’t show any signs of slowing down.  Starbucks brand biofuel made right here in the USA is starting to look like a good business opportunity.

China is building over 200 hundred new nuclear power plants

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.

Obama puts a stop to the popular off shore drilling option

Barbara Hollingsworth reports in the DC Examiner:

The Obama administration’s six-month delay in approving new offshore drilling leases in federal waters will become a new three-year ban, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar quietly told reporters last Friday. Which means that no new oil and gas leases will be approved during President Obama’s term even though two –thirds of the American public supports such activity, according to a December 2009 Rasmussen poll.

“Secretary Salazar has finally confirmed what had long been feared – that the Obama Administration has no intention of opening up new areas for offshore drilling during his four-years in office,” said Rep. Doc Hastings, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.

So for the next three years and probably more, trillions of dollars in domestic energy assets will remain untouched while billions of dollars more are spent on foreign oil.

Clearly, as in the Health Care “debate”, our Dear Leader has absolutely no interest in what the American People, whom he was elected to represent, care about in a vitally important subject.   The President’s ban on domestic energy sources also tells us that he has no interest in halting rising energy costs or taking any steps toward improving the economy.  Opening up these resources will immediately create  many “shovel ready” good paying jobs, providing a short term benefit to the economy as well as long term benefits.  Why is our Dear Leader opposed to actually improving the US economy?

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.