Archive for the ‘Nuclear Power’ Category

Special Earth Day Book Pick!

April 22, 2009

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

Find out why Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore thinks the Nuclear Energy is the ecologically sound thing to do.

Advertisements

Infrastrucure we should be building.

December 28, 2008

Our Dear Leader should listen to Dr. Pournelle on what kind of infrastructure the United States of America should be building.

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.

Of course we won’t do that.

Just think of all the plug in hybrid cars that could be on the road with all that cheap, carbon free, clean electricity.

Mini-Reactors in the works.

July 17, 2008

Good news for those concerned with Global Warming and American Energy independence!

Plans for smaller nuclear reactors, which can be US built, have been submitted to the NRC for approval.

These small plants, which produce no greenhouse gases, are designed to produce 45-megawatts of power with a very small footprint. The unit is less than 70 feet long and the containment vessel is only 14 feet in diameter.

These can be easily placed in remote areas that currently use diesel generators and would be useful in more urban areas, such as California and the Northeast, to reduce dependence on plants that burn coal, oil and natural gas.

Cross posted at http://urbintechnology.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/mini-reactors-in-the-works/.

Obama’s all over the map

July 3, 2008

In the Lightgiver’s desire to be all things to all people, Barry is all over the place with, among other things, his so-called “energy policy”
First, according to USA Today, he’s for more Nuclear Power.
But when he is pandering to his Watermelon base:

In October of last year, when Obama was going all out to pander to his party’s anti-nuclear base, Obama made his position clear: “I am not a nuclear energy proponent.”

So Obama is against Yucca Mountain (naturally, he also voted to fund it) but demands a solution to the storage problem. He wants to make certain that the plants are safe but his own state has more plants than any other and no history of accidents. And Obama wants to spend $150 billion on developing new sources of renewable energy, but he doesn’t want to provide a single dollar to a proven, safe, reliable, and emissions free technology.

So Barak Obama is against safe, proven and green technology that can meet America’s energy needs rapidly, but is more than willing to spend money pie in the sky technologies that won’t be ready for at least ten years.

If you are really serious about reducing carbon emissions…

July 2, 2008

…you’ll love this plan. Even if you don’t buy into the Cult of Algore theory that carbon is bad for Gaia (who seems to be thriving in spite of, or perhaps because of, increase carbon output), it is also a good plan for reducing the value of the oil under the control of dictators and reducing domestic energy costs.

First, implement Dr. Pournelle’s plan:

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.

The next step is already being worked on by automobile manufacturers, decent electric cars.
I see a lot of money to be made from an electric mini-van that has a 100 to 150 mile range. There are a lot of soccer moms out there who do the majority of their driving with a 25 mile range of home. That is a lot of V-6 engines that can be taken off the road.

All those city buses that currently run on diesel can be converted to electric power with plenty of clean, cheap Nuclear power.

Cut back on heating homes with oil and natural gas. Why use that expensive option when there is plenty of low cost, carbon neutral, electricity generated by clean, safe Nuclear Power?

Come on people! The French generate 80% of their electric power from Nuclear Power and even they can manage to do it safely!

McCain talks sense, Obama spouts leftist rhetoric

June 17, 2008

According to the Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices…

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country’s coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

“We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil,” McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that “we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions.”

The US used to produce most of its oil need domestically, but the Carter era “windfall profit” taxes put an end to that. A failed government policy that the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter, i.e. Barak H. Obama, wants to repeat.

What Senator McCain is calling for is just common sense. The market price should start to drop once the feds decide that drilling for oil ten miles closer to shore than the Communist Chinese oil platforms (which are currently 60 miles off the coast of Florida) is OK.

Of course, the democrat response, made by Obama, is the typical Fear Mongering that they excel in. They spout the lie that McCain is “trying to drill our way out of the problem.”

They know this isn’t true, but will push that lie anyway. Drilling is only part of the solution. Proven, industrial scale, domestic energy solutions, such as Nuclear Power, is also needed. Increasing the use of clean, safe, Nuclear energy is something else that democrats oppose out of irrational fear.

The Washington Post article points out that Senator McCain does not share their irrational fear:

McCain backs federal subsidies for building more nuclear power plants, which he considers the best way to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

Let’s be honest here, if you buy into the Cult of Algore theory of Carbon Emissions causing widespread Global Warming”, and you oppose Nuclear Power, you are either, woefully ignorant, in denial, or a hypocrite of the first order. Probably a combination of all three.

In addition to Nuclear, other alternate sources of energy should be explored, including biofuels (that doesn’t use food as a source), solar, hydrogen, and others. What we don’t need is the democrat head in the sand solution to our immediate problems. The democrat leadership may not care if their policies (or lack there of) have a serious negative effect on the US economy, but the rest of America should.

Catching up…

September 18, 2007

While I catch up on the news, here is a foursome from News Busters for you.

1. Kudos to liberal political comic Bill Maher for telling the Troofer Moonbats that they need to up their meds.

2. Keith Olbermann admits that MSNBC has a liberal bias. File under, “No Shit.”

3. “Global Warming Is All Jane Fonda’s Fault”, so sayth the NY Times.

4. Alan Greenspan: I Never Said Iraq War Was About Oil

Clean, Greenhouse-friendly Energy!

April 6, 2007

By way of Mr. Reynolds comes an interesting read on the recent Supreme Court ruling on “greenhouse gases:

The irony is that the beneficiary of Monday’s ruling won’t be wind power, solar power, or any of the other renewable technologies favored by the Green establishment. Their economic and technological limitations are too severe for them ever to occupy more than a small niche in the American energy economy. Instead, one of the winners from Massachusetts v. EPA just may be something that many of the environmentalists who brought the suit have long abhorred: nuclear power. Like renewables, nuclear power generates electricity with no pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions. But unlike renewables, nuclear is capable of generating reliable power on a massive scale, which is what our country’s future energy demands will require.

Nuclear power is on the verge of making a comeback in the United States. Thanks to several favorable provisions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, as well as a streamlined licensing process, it is possible we could see the construction of new plants start within several years. The economics for new plant construction are still being worked out, particularly with regard to financing and federal loan guarantees. But there can be no doubt that federal efforts to hamstring coal can only help nuclear. Moreover, any future regulatory scheme allowing nuclear power plant operators to earn credits for generating emissions-free electricity would enhance nuclear’s attractiveness to investors.

Read the whole thing

Cool Space techology we can use now…

November 25, 2006

Reading “The Sky People” reminded me of the Orion Space Drive. A method of travel we could be using for interplanetary travel (or trips to the Asteroid Belt and back) right now.

That is of course if leftist bed wetters were not such sissys about nuclear techology.

That is what is stopping of from having lots of clean, safe, environmental friendly nuclear power production here in the US as well.

Come on people! Step away from the bong and think about it! It is the environmentally friendly thing to do and it reduces the nations dependancy on foreign oil. Greens and far left liberals should be all over this like Botox on Pelosi!