Screw The Environment – Humans were meant to pollute and they have the right to pollute

I never thought I would be citing Kathryn Rem at the SJ-R for an environmental article. Don’t get me wrong she is a dandy writer, in the same league with Tim Landis (whom I regularly “borrow from”), but she usually writes a food column. I read it faithfully because I am a minor foodie, and she usually has cool things to say. In her Seeing Red About Green, she broke a story that I might have missed. Thanks Ms. Rem!

www.sj-r.com/features/x379998865/KathrynRem-Seeing-red-about-the-green-movement

:}

This is the article that I think she based her article on:

http://industry.bnet.com/retail/2008/07/14/one-quarter-of-consumers-say-screw-the-environment/ 

 Retail Industry

Industry news and insights by Lisa EverittOne-Quarter of Consumers Say ‘Screw The Environment’Two new studies say 10-26 percent of shoppers are “Never Greens,” whose reactions to environmental claims ranges from apathy to outright anger.

Mintel International in Chicago coined the term “Never Green” to describe 10 percent of the shopper universe. A second study by The Shelton Group of Knoxville, Tenn., found that 26 percent of respondents were “hardcore skeptics,” mostly upper middle-class, conservative, middle-aged men.

 reporter Jim Edwards profiles William Coverley, a retired investment banker from Ohio, who just bought his 10th vehicle, a 2008 GMC Yukon XL that gets 14 miles per gallon.

“I don’t care about the environmental reasons and I’ll tell you why,” Coverley said. “All this stuff about carbon emissions, no one really knows about the output of the sun and yet it’s the single most important input behind global warming . . . Are the Chinese going to be environmentalists? Are the Indians going to be environmentalists? Are the Russians? I don’t think so.”

Edwards suggests studying your market carefully before launching green marketing, because emphasizing environmental claims may cost you the business of people like Coverley or Washington accountant Sally Herigstad. She bought organic produce by mistake at Fred Meyer and was dismayed to discover a recently deceased two-inch caterpillar in her steamed broccoli.

Shelton Group CEO Suzanne Shelton found that 46 percent of respondents felt “guilty, skeptical, irritated or unaffected by green issues,” and the same percentage put their comfort ahead of convenience and environmental concerns. The study was commissioned by Shelton Group client BP Solar.

Lisa Everitt

A Denver-based business writer, Lisa Everitt is a veteran of daily and weekly newspapers and trade magazines, including The Natural Foods Merchandiser, Rocky Mountain News, Inter@ctive Week, San Francisco Business Times, and the Peninsula Times Tribune. 

:}

So in the end that is what the environmental movement is up against.  The environmental Rape Crowd, proud that they are stealing from their grandchildren because their grandparents stole from them. If you think they aren’t vocal, you would be wrong.

:}

www.screw-the-environment.imgwebdesign.co.uk

www.deadbabyseals.gather.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2041643/posts

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODDDu25OG6M

http://screwtheenvironment.blogspot.com/

www.iammamahearmeroar.blogspot.com/2007/09/screwenvironment.html

 http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/8/214522/1724

:}

Nuclear Future – Probably Not – Or as W says Nuclr

Oh yah, they were gona go gangbusters on this ultra new design. Ah would that be untested?

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2008/07/revelations-of-nuclear-reactor-design.asp

FACING SOUTH

A New Voice for a Changing South

 iss_logo.gif

 PO Box 531  •  Durham,NC 27702  •  Telephone: (919) 419-8311  •  Fax: (919) 419-8315

July 28, 2008 

Revelations of nuclear reactor

design flaws spur

legal action over

Duke cost estimates

In states across the South, utility companies are pushing ahead with plans to construct a new kind of nuclear reactor. Designed by Westinghouse Electric Co., the AP1000 is to date but an idea on paper, having never been tested with a demonstration model in the real world.
And now it appears there are serious problems with the reactor design, which is delaying the regulatory approval process. Those problems, in turn, have sparked legal actions by public-interest groups calling on utilities commissions in the Carolinas to revoke $230 million in approved pre-construction costs for two new reactors planned by Duke Energy of Charlotte, N.C.

Last week, Friends of the Earth in Columbia, S.C. and the Durham-based N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network filed legal motions seeking the cost revocation. They argue that the design problems threaten Duke’s chances of ever completing two new AP1000 reactors it wants to build at the proposed Lee Nuclear Station on the Broad River in Cherokee County, S.C.. They also say the delays mean Duke can’t provide a reliable cost estimate for the station by year’s end, a commitment the company made to both commissions during hearings on pre-construction costs.

“Duke Energy’s customers should not be stuck holding the bag if the company keeps pouring millions into that risky project,” said Friends of the Earth’s Tom Clements. “The state regulatory agencies must now reverse their earlier decisions to approve Duke’s reactor project and require that the company not come back for reconsideration until the reactor design is finalized.”

In a June 27 letter to Westinghouse, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the company’s recent withdrawal of technical documents due to design problems had delayed the agency’s review of key components and systems. Earlier this year, as part of the application process for building new plants, Duke Energy and other companies filed some 6,500 pages of technical documents from Westinghouse.

The NRC wants to review and certify plant designs separately from the plant applications. Because the agency expects more design modifications as its review continues, it’s likely that all the projects involving the AP1000 will be delayed.

The same type of reactors are being proposed by Progress Energy for its Shearon Harris plant in Wake County, N.C. as well as the company’s planned facility in Levy County, Fla.; SCE&G for the Summer Nuclear Plant in Fairfield County, S.C.; Georgia Power’s Vogtle plant in Burke County, Ga.; FP&L’s Turkey Point nuclear plant in Miami-Dade County; and Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station in Jackson County, Ala.

A public hearing about the Bellefonte plant is scheduled for this Wednesday, July 30 at 9 a.m. at the Scottsboro Goosepond Civic Center in Scottsboro, Ala. The AP1000 design problems are expected to be part of the discussion.

Concerns about the reactor design were also raised during the July 17 public meeting in Waynesboro, Ga. about the two new reactors proposed for the Vogtle plant. Though the NRC does not expect to certify the reactor’s final design until 2012, the NRC said they expected to issue a license for Vogtle in 2011, leading nuclear opponents to level charges of “rubber stamping.”

The AP1000 reactors are being built by a consortium, 80 percent of which is owned by Westinghouse Electric (which in turn is owned by Japan’s Toshiba Corp.) and the rest by Louisiana-based The Shaw Group’s nuclear division. In December 2006, the AP1000 Consortium won a contract with China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Co. to build four new nuclear power plants in that country.

leenuclearplans.jpg

:}

They Finally Busted The Bastards – Oil speculators starting to get complaints from the CFTC

Commodity Futures Trading Commission….say it now Commodity Futures Trading Commission …..oh yah now the CFTC is going to be hot on TV. God Bless Steve Hargreaves. I am a thief.. but I am not going to list his entire post or even claim it as my own. But I have been bitching about the speculators in oil since last September so I think I get to thump my chest a little. I even rented the Movie Trading places so I can get into the spirit of the thing. So let’s recronical the events. In August the  Fed announces that they are more worried about stability in the housing market, refuses to back the dollar with interest rate increases and the dollar plunges. All of the currency speculators dumped their dollars (many of whom are also the oil speculators today – hint hint) and the price of oil climbs to 50$$s a barrel. The Saudies and OPEC see the rise as good for them and constrict production slightly. The price climbs to 60$$s a barrel and the speculators say hmmm. There is a commodity we can abuse so they buy long in the futures market, take that oil out of the market and the price begins to soar. WHY? Because these are people who have never been in the oil market. They are not going to touch a single barrel of oil and the oil guys do not know these people. So the speculators keep buying and the price keys rising which should have ended at about 100$$ a barrel. At that point every financial planner for every rich person said, “get into oil” like it was gold or something. As they did the oil soared again to somewhere around 130$$ per barrel. The gasoline refiners realized they could jack the price of gasoline under the guise of expensive oil even though that’s not the price they were paying.

The Saudies got pissed off because they know at some point people will quit using gasoline and they know most that quit using gasoline will not come back ultimately destroying their market. This is when it gets good because this is when the chisslers and the real crooks get in. They start selling their futures to each other at inflated prices, and the people busted today start hammering the market at the open and the close and the market hyperinflates to high water marks for now at 148/149$$$ a barrel. Damn you would think these people would at least have the decency to hit 150$$ but nooooo. That is because the Senate announced that they were holding hearings on speculation and the Bushman order the CFTC to investigate. OH OO. So the speculators start to sell off but they have to doooo itttt slowlllly or the oil market crashes and the whole world starts looking for them to kill them!

So what will happen now? Well alot of minor chisselers and crooks will go to jail. The real players at the hedge funds will be nearly out of oil by the end of August and prices will slowllllly come down until the refiners have to drop prices and start up capacity that they have not been using lately.

Now, who is responsible for all of this? Well Phil Gramm and his Wife Wendy actually (yes the guy who said we were whiners)  They effectively changed the rules for commodity trading at the end of Bill Clinton’s term and people just sort of played with it in 2000 to 2003 BECAUSE there was more money to be made, and more fun too, in the housing market. Yah those Wall Street guys are real wacky when it comes to stealing other people’s money.  

:}

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/24/markets/cftc/index.htm

Traders manipulated oil prices – U.S.

Regulators claim firm attempted to ‘bang the close’ by amassing large positions

just before markets closed.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The government charged an oil trading firm Thursday with manipulating oil prices in the first complaint to be announced since the regulators began a new investigation into wrongdoings in the energy markets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused Optiver Holding, two of its subsidiaries and three employees with manipulation and attempted manipulation of crude oil, heating oil and gasoline futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

“Optiver traders amassed large trading positions, then conducted trades in such a way to bully and hammer the markets,” CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken said at a press conference. “These charges go to the heart of the CFTC’s core mission of detecting and rooting out illegal manipulation of the markets.”

In May, under the backdrop of record oil prices and calls from legislators to crack down on speculative oil trading and market manipulation, the CFTC announced a wide-ranging probe into oil price manipulation. The agency says it has dozens of investigations ongoing.

The complaint filed Thursday names Bastiaan van Kempen, chief executive; Christopher Dowson, a head trader; and Randal Meijer, head of trading at an Optiver subsidiary.

The CFTC said the firm attempted to “bang the close” by amassing large positions just before markets closed – forcing prices up – then selling them quickly to drive prices down and pocketing the difference.

The alleged manipulation was attempted 19 times on 11 days in March 2007, the agency said. In at least five of those 19 times, traders succeeded in driving prices higher twice and lower three times, according to the CFTC.

Optiver issued a written statement saying the firm had received the complaint.

“We take the Commission’s action very seriously, and are treating it with utmost attention and care,” said the statement. “Obviously, we cannot comment further until we have had the opportunity to review the complaint.”

CFTC stressed that the price changes were small and the manipulation was isolated, and that the investigation has nothing to do with the recent heat the agency has taken on Capitol Hill over rising oil prices.

:}

Here is more from the CFTC itself:

http://www.cftc.gov/newsroom/enforcementpressreleases/2008/pr5521-08.html

CFTC Charges Optiver

 Holding BV,

Two

 Subsidiaries, and High

-Ranking

Employees with

 Manipulation of NYMEX

Crude Oil,

Heating Oil,

and Gasoline Futures

Contracts

Defendant Caught on Tape and in

Email Saying He Would “Bully”

the Market

 The CFTC filed the civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Optiver Holding BV, a global proprietary trading fund headquartered in the Netherlands, and two subsidiaries – Optiver US, LLC (Optiver), a Chicago-based corporation, and Optiver VOF, a Dutch company. The complaint also names defendants Christopher Dowson (head trader of Optiver), Randal Meijer (head of trading and supervisor of Optiver and Optiver VOF) and Bastiaan van Kempen (Chief Executive Officer of Optiver).

The Energy Futures Contracts Manipulated by Defendants

The defendants’ manipulative trading scheme involved three futures contracts listed for trading on the NYMEX: the Light Sweet Crude Oil futures contract (Crude Oil, also referred to as West Texas Intermediate (WTI)), the New York Harbor Heating Oil futures contract (Heating Oil), and the New York Harbor Reformulated Gasoline Blendstock futures contract (New York Harbor Gasoline). The settlement price for the Crude Oil, New York Gasoline, and Heating Oil futures contracts is derived by calculating the volume weighted average prices of futures trades conducted during the closing period for the contracts (from 2:28 to 2:30 p.m.). The volume weighted average price is referred to commonly as the VWAP.

The defendants’ manipulative scheme involved the Trading at Settlement (or TAS) contracts in Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline contracts. TAS contracts are futures contracts, except that the parties determine at the initiation of the contract that the price of the TAS contract will be the day’s settlement price plus or minus an agreed differential. A TAS contract which has been bought or sold can be offset by trading a futures contract in the opposite direction.

The Manipulative Scheme

The manipulative scheme, in defendant Dowson’s words, to “bully the market,” involved trading a significant volume of futures contracts in Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline in the opposite direction of the associated TAS position, before and during the close of the contracts. The defendants’ goal in trading the large volume of futures was to improperly influence and affect the price of futures contracts in Crude Oil, Heating Oil, and New York Harbor Gasoline. The defendants’ manipulative scheme was, in the words of defendant Meijer, “built on the idea that we can control the VWAP.”

As alleged in the complaint, the scheme ultimately permitted defendants to profit regardless of the direction of the market move, provided that Optiver’s futures trading in the close and before the close was in the opposite direction of the TAS position it had accumulated during the trading day.

:}

All of this is hysterical because they just said that the reason for the rise in the price of oil was SUPPLY AND DEMAND 2 days ago. Dare I say it? Thats Rich. 

State Journal Register Supports Big Oil –

Last week the State Journal Register solicited a “Guest OP-ED” piece from the mouth piece for the Illinois Petroleum Council that in simple form says we must overcome our current energy crisis by,  Conservation and
fuel economy
  (which he instantly discounts), Stronger energy-trading alliances with neighbors, Expand domestic resources, and  Diversify supply.  By diversify he means Nukes. You can read the rest of the slop at:

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x833727955/David-Sykuta-We-have-to-get-over-it-and-explore-energy-options

I know for a fact that many people have written to respond against most of his ideas because many environmentalists including Will Reynolds and Diane Lopez always do. I posting my letter here because I sent one and they did not publish it:

Editor

State Journal Register

One Copley Plaza

Springfield, IL 62701

Emailed – 07/015/08

Dear Editor:

 

Dave Sykuta recent guest editorial “Get Over It” (the title of an Eagles song)  was nothing but one long environmental taunt. It had nothing to do with the irrationality we call the Oil Market.

 

Supply is not the overwhelming issue that he makes it out to be. The Iranians have 7 or 8 super tankers full of oil (depending on which report you listen to) parked in their main port because nobody is buying them. Why? Because the price is artificially elevated. Speculators beginning as far back as September of last year have bought up the cheap oil. We are now at a precipitous economic moment. An oil Mexican Standoff. The speculators can’t sell or the price will drop dramatically and hardly anyone is buying because they know the price is too high. Best guesstamates are that at least 40-50$$ of the current price of oil is due to speculators.

 

But the Drillers want to take advantage of this artificial shortage to get more Leases, because in their warped minds the leases that they hold are the leases the other guy don’t. The proof of this is the current 85 million acres that they lease that they won’t explore.

 

Really though nobody cares about the price of oil, what they car about is the prices of gasoline products. That price is being rigged as well. Refineries are at 85% of their capacity because if they ran the refineries at capacity they would lose money. In a perverse market flaw, the more they make the cheaper gas becomes and they lose money. Again the gasoline refiners are using the rigged higher oil prices to run up their profits by keeping refineries at the bare minimum it takes to run this country.

 

All the loud shouting at each other about the price we pay at the pump has obscured the realities on the ground. Oil production has been stuck on 85 million barrels a day now for sometime. Even though everybody has pledged to raise it. That may be the real limit on production and the world may have to learn live with it, discounting the fact that China is hording diesel in preparation for the Olympics.

 

Anyway, “if the drill here drill now” crowd had their way, what would they drill with? Brazil just bought or leased the 160 available rigs in the world to try to extract oil from their new alleged oil field off their southern coast.

 

When an oilman that I trust (there ain’t many – please see There Will Be Blood) T. Boone Pickens pledges to build a 1000 megawatt wind farm in Texas and then pays his own money for an TV advertisement to say why. (hint: we are running out of oil) Then I go with the wind farm guy every time.

 

I believe the Eagles said they would tour again when hell freezes over. Did I miss something?

  

Doug Nicodemus

948 e. adams st.

riverton, IL  62561

629-7031

dougnic55@yahoo.com

 

:}

AND YET THEY RUN STORIES LIKE THIS IN THEIR Business Section in the newspaper and don’t even acknowledge that they did on their web site:

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_S_oilprofits22.3ad2ac6.html

Big Oil steers record profits to investors

MONEY: Critics say too much is going into stock

buybacks and not enough into exploration.

By JOHN PORRETTO
The Associated Press
HOUSTON – As giant oil companies like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips get set to report what will probably be another round of eye-popping quarterly profits, just where is all that money going?The companies insist they’re trying to find new oil that might help bring down gas prices, but the money they spend on exploration is nothing compared with what they spend on stock buybacks and dividends.It’s good news for shareholders, including mutual funds and retirement plans for millions of Americans, but no help to drivers already making drastic cutbacks to offset the high cost of fuel. The five biggest international oil companies plowed about 55 percent of the cash they made from their businesses into stock buybacks and dividends last year, up from 30 percent in 2000 and just 1 percent in 1993, according to Rice University’s James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

The percentage they spend to find new deposits of fossil fuels has remained flat for years, in the mid-single digits.

The issue has become more sensitive as lawmakers and Americans frustrated by high gas prices have balked at gaudy reports of oil industry profits. ConocoPhillips is scheduled to kick off the latest round of Big Oil earnings reports Wednesday.

Oil prices are set on the open market, not by the oil industry. But that hasn’t stopped public protests, a series of congressional grillings for top oil executives, and a failed attempt by lawmakers to slap Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

In the first three months of this year, Exxon Mobil Corp., the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company, shelled out $8.8 billion on stock buybacks alone, compared with $5.5 billion on exploration and other capital projects.

ConocoPhillips has already told investors that its stock buybacks for April to June of this year will come to about $2.5 billion — nine times what it spent on exploration.

Stock buybacks are common throughout corporate America, not just for Big Oil. They shrink the amount of stock on the open market, essentially increasing its value and giving individual shareholders a bigger stake in the company.

But some critics say Big Oil focuses too much on boosting stock prices, in an industry that sometimes ties executive pay to stock price.

And in focusing on buybacks and dividends over exploring for new oil, some critics say, oil companies jeopardize its already dwindling share of world supply.

“If you’re not spending your money finding and developing new oil, then there’s no new oil,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University who’s studied spending patterns of the major oil companies.

Investor-owned companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron hold less than 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, way down from past decades. And finding new oil has become harder and more expensive.

No one questions that Big Oil is rolling in cash. The cash the biggest oil companies bring in from running their businesses, or operating cash flow, is four times what it was in the early 1990s.

“It becomes a management decision,” said Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst at Standard & Poor’s. “It’s not like they’re going to the board and saying, ‘Well, I can do one or the other or the other.’ The balance sheets are flush with cash.”
 

:}
:}

We Are All Going To Die – Oil hits 150$$ a barrel.

Just kidding. It’s hard to concentrate on the residential housing market when everyone is all aflutter about the high prices of gasoline and the artificially high oil prices. I wish gasoline prices would double again. Then we would see some real doom and gloom. This from Asianone:

http://business.asiaone.com/Business/My%2BMoney/Opinion/Story/A1Story20080701-74069.html:}

 asiaone.gif

The economics of running on empty

Wed, Jul 02, 2008
The New Paper
By Dr Larry Haverkamp

 Surprisingly, there are only two ways to invest: You can own or you can lend. That’s it.

Owning is called ‘buying equity’. Examples are stocks and property.

It earns about 12 per cent a year with lots of ups and downs. You could lose some sleep.

Lending is called ‘buying debt’. Examples are fixed deposits and bonds.

It earns about 3 per cent a year and lets you sleep soundly.

An age-old truth of investments is that equity earns more than debt. I guess it’s obvious since 12 per cent is more than 3 per cent.

A WHOLE NEW WORLD

But now, everything has changed. The world is entering a new era of shortages that could turn the old rules on their heads.

Stocks would follow the economy down, leaving fixed deposits as the top money-earner.

The story begins with the higher prices for natural resources like food, fuel and minerals.

High prices, however, are only a symptom. Chronic shortages are the problem.

You can imagine, for example, the difficulty of building a house without steel or cement.

We saw something like this in 1973 and again in 1982. The US was hit with an oil shortfall, which resulted in both recession and inflation, called stagflation. It spread to Singapore and around the world.

In hindsight, it seems overblown, since everything turned out okay. Prices shot up, then they came down. Growth slowed, then it picked up.

Prosperity returned, as it always does. If it didn’t, you would have a permanent recession. The notion is so absurd that no economist in their right mind would even consider it. So I will.

In a worse-case scenario, permanent recession hits and each generation becomes poorer than the last. Gross domestic product (GDP) declines continuously. It eventually hits zero and we return to subsistence living, like our cavemen ancestors.

We may be seeing the beginning of that now.

Demand is out-pacing the world’s limited supplies, pushing prices higher.

NEW OIL RECORD

Last Friday, oil hit another new high of US$142 a barrel. It is exactly double the price of one year ago.

The demand comes from a rising middle class in China, India and the Middle East. This is new. We didn’t have it in 1973 and1982.

When Li Yong, Ramesh and Abdullah buy their first motorbikes, they love it. They find it hard to go back to peddling bicycles.

The US Department of Energy expects energy use in 30 developed countries to increase 25 per cent by 2030. In developing countries, it will increase 95 per cent.

As high prices persist for one, two, three and then 10 years, people will grow to understand that this is more than just a speculative bubble. (Sorry, Fat Cat.)

A permanent shortage of input (resources) produces a continuous decline in output (GDP). That, by the way, is the definition of a permanent recession.

To drive the point home, try this experiment:

Fill up your car or motorbike with one tank of gas and drive to Kuala Lumpur. When you run out of petrol, walk the rest of the way. It shouldn’t take more than a week.

You’ll be tired, but you will gain insight into a life without natural resources.

The shortages will sneak up on us gradually. A tank of petrol will soon cost some drivers a full day’s wages. After that, it will take a month’s wages and then a year’s.

Finally, availability will cease altogether and the lights will go out.

Future generations will sit around the campfire and tell fantastic stories about hollow trees with wheels that took people from Yishun to Orchard Road in less than an hour.

:}

This from Singapore no less… 

:}

The Yucca Mountain Operating Permit Arrived In Washington Today!

The application on CD arrive several months ago but the ACTUAL Paper application arrive today at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission simultaneously. The application filled a semitrailer truck for each agency and took a chain of workers to unload the boxes. This is not getting off to an environmentally start is it? I wonder how many trees they killed to make the application.

So I thought we would take this day before Weird Bird Friday to catch up with the old “hole in the ground” in the Nevada Desert.

Here is what the what the current female Editor of the Magazine RadWaste puts it:

http://www.ans.org/pubs/magazines/rs/docs/2008-3-4-2.pdf

“Isn’t ironic?  While the nuclear reactor sector is beginning to boom….In the area of high-level waste, the proposed Yucca Mountain/spent fuel repository project is expected to submit its license application to the NRC this year. But Congress, thanks to efforts of Yacca Mountain opponent Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev), the Senate majority leader, cut more than 100 million $$$ from the fiscal 2008 appropriation for the project, putting the the license application at risk and ensuring that continuing research….

     The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s trade group, is so excited about the nuclear renaissance that it’s willing to put waste issues aside for now.”

:}

That doesn’t sound good.

http://www.republican-eagle.com/articles/index.cfm?id=50783§ion=News

Others seem more hopeful – the Natives re restless:

City and tribal leaders hail Yucca

Mountain  progress

Mike Longaecker The Republican Eagle
Published Thursday, June 05, 2008

 A major step toward building a national nuclear waste repository has been met with support from Red Wing leaders.

The Department of Energy on Wednesday submitted its license application to build a facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., where proponents hope to store spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste.

If accepted, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will undertake what officials estimate will be a three-year licensing process.

Prairie Island Indian Community Tribal Council President Ron Johnson called the application submittal “a giant step.”

“I hope it goes further than that,” he said.

The tribe has long been a supporter of the project, which proposes to store 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste inside the remote, tunneled-out mountain.

Both the tribe and the city of Red Wing are members of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition.

City officials have also backed Yucca Mountain in hopes of moving the waste out of the Red Wing area.

“As neighbors to a nuclear power plant, it is vital to the community to move Yucca Mountain forward and create a permanent repository for this waste,” Red Wing City Council President Carol Duff said in a statement.

“It cannot continue to be stored in the backyards of communities like Red Wing, creating a risk of exposure.”

 :}

In fact it’s all tied up in the new Carbon Capping Bill though the good thing is that the Global Warming as a hoax arguement disappeared from the debate:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0605/p02s05-uspo.html

 On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) submitted a long-awaited license application to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada – a move that supporters say is essential to revive the nuclear-power industry.

Nuclear-power advocates hope to use the global-warming bill as a vehicle for reviving the industry. They make the case that without a significant increase in nuclear power, it will be impossible to lower carbon emissions without a blow to US living standards.

“It’s time we begin the nuclear renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, in a statement after the announcement. “If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission, nonemitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today.”

Many Democrats are wary of risking the support of some environmental groups over nuclear power. Majority leader Reid, a longtime opponent of a nuclear-waste dump in his state, charged that DOE filed the application with only about 35 percent of the work done to justify it.

“Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be,” he said on Tuesday. Republicans say they are holding out for a wide-ranging debate over the global-warming bill, including many amendments. Democratic leaders worry that some amendments, including those over nuclear power, could undermine support for the bill.

Commenting on the diverse coalition of lawmakers now supporting the bill, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) of California said: “They need a certain amount to stay on it. I need a certain amount not to get off it. We’re looking for that sweet spot.”

:}

Of course, the Energy Hogs are screaming VICTORY:

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/05/morning-bell-the-lefts-nuclear-nightmare/

 Morning Bell: The Left’s Nuclear Nightmare

 Posted June 5th, 2008 at 9.18am in Energy and Environment.

The U.S. Department of Energy officially submitted the license application to build a nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada earlier this week. A strong supporter of the Lieberman-Warner carbon-capping bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was incredulous, telling reporters: “Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be.” However, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) both recognize that their bill will not pass without more nuclear power.

Far to Warner and Lieberman’s left though, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) thinks their bill does not need to reform the nuclear industry: “Already in the bill there’s a whole funding stream for these low-carbon, noncarbon energy sources and that’s sufficient. I don’t think you need more.” It is nice that Boxer believes this–but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) sure don’t.

Throughout the debate on Lieberman-Warner, activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund have quoted selectively from EPA and EIA studies to minimize the ruinous effects the bill would have on the U.S. economy. For example, this press release celebrates the fact that under Lieberman-Warner the economy will grow by 80 percent by 2030.

What the EDF doesn’t tell you is that the same report says Lieberman-Warner would raise energy prices by 44 percent in the same time frame. But the real kicker comes when you look at the assumptions the EPA made to come to its conclusions. Despite the fact that the U.S. has not built a new nuclear reactor in two decades, the EPA assumes that the U.S. will build 50 new reactors in the next 25 years.

Without these new power plants, which the Environmental Defense Fund no doubt will oppose, the U.S. economy will be 650 gigawatts of electric power short of its needs. That will send the price of energy through the roof — and kill many more jobs than the EPA currently estimates.

:} 

If you want to take a look at the site you can go here:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wl

But trust me it’s pretty boring!

:}

Will Field Corn Kill Us? No but it’s killing the cows..

Many people were horrified by the scandal surrounding cattle that were so weak that they were either being prodded with a forklift or actually carried to the kill room with the fork lift. Most people, not being involved in agriculture, wondered how anyone could be so callous. BUT the most disgusting thing you run into when you look into the issue of Factory Farming Cattle (and there are a lot of nasty things here) is that the corn that is feed to the cattle after they are weaned is killing them. So to slaughterhouse staff and meat packers its a matter timing whether they get them in the kill room before they die.

http://richard-goodman.blogspot.com/2008/02/meatpacker-in-cow-abuse-scandal-may.html

 Meatpacker in Cow-Abuse Scandal May Shut as Congress Turns Up Heat

By DAVID KESMODEL and JANE ZHANG
Write to David Kesmodel at david.kesmodel @ wsj.com
and Jane Zhang at Jane.Zhang @ wsj.com
February 25, 2008; 
CHINO, Calif. — Last year, a man carrying a hidden video camera took a $12-an-hour job at a little-known beef slaughterhouse here. Now the meatpacker is about to collapse, and has become a flashpoint in a national debate over meat safety and the quality of food Americans serve their schoolchildren.

Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co., one of the biggest suppliers of beef to the national school-lunch program before videos showing animal cruelty at the plant helped trigger the biggest meat recall in U.S. history, probably will shut down permanently, according to the company’s general manager, Anthony Magidow.

:}

As John Robbins points out modern cattle raising is all about carving up cattle quick:

What About Grass-fed Beef?

 Feeding grain to cattle has got to be one of the dumbest ideas in the history of western civilization.

Cows, sheep, and other grazing animals are endowed with the ability to convert grasses, which those of us who possess only one stomach cannot digest, into food that we can digest. They can do this because they are ruminants, which is to say that they possess a rumen, a 45 or so gallon (in the case of cows) fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into protein and fats.

Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed beef, but in the United States today what is commercially available is almost all feedlot beef. The reason? It’s faster, and so more profitable. Seventy-five years ago, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter. Today, they are 14 or 16 months. You can’t take a beef calf from a birth weight of 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a little more than a year on grass. It takes enormous quantities of corn, protein supplements, antibiotics and other drugs, including growth hormones.

Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible.
 All this is not only unnatural and dangerous for the cows. It also has profound consequences for us. Feedlot beef as we know it today would be impossible if it weren’t for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are the new “superbugs” that are increasingly rendering our “miracle drugs” ineffective.

:}

Letting Corporations into anything in agriculture besides processing is turning out to be a disaster in many respects from beginning to end. To this end we could talk about any plant or animal that we eat, but if we keep our focus on corn it becomes clear that all the corporate ag production affairs require one thing energy and lots of it.

While the movie, King Corn, has a lot going for it, like cute college kids out for a lark and the absurdity of growing an acre of anything in the current farm system, it is actually a pretty good look at why growing as much corn as we do is stupid and corporate farming only compounds that.

:}

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

While the planting, growing and harvesting of field corn takes an incredible amount of energy, the real energy comes after it has been harvested. You can’t eat the stuff so it all has to be PROCESSED to be used or eaten by animals most of which don’t like the stuff but eat it if they are forced to. As the film makers themselves say:

 http://kingcorn.net/

Almost everything Americans eat contains corn: high fructose corn syrup, corn-fed meat, and corn-based processed foods are the staples of the modern diet.  Ready for an adventure and alarmed by signs of their generation’s bulging waistlines, college friends Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis know where to go to investigate.  Eighty years ago, Ian and Curt’s great-grandfathers lived just a few miles apart, in the same rural county in northern Iowa.  Now their great-grandsons are returning with a mission:  they will plant an acre of corn, follow their harvest into the world, and attempt to understand what they—and all of us—are really made of.

 

But where will all that corn go? Ian and Curt leave Iowa to find out, first considering their crop’s future as feed.  In Colorado, rancher Sue Jarrett says her cattle should be eating grass.  But with a surplus of corn, it costs less to raise cattle in confinement than to let them roam free: “The mass production of corn drives the mass production of protein in confinement.”  Animal nutritionists confirm that corn makes cows sick and beef fatty, but it also lets consumers eat a $1 hamburger.  Feedlot owner Bob Bledsoe defends America’s cheap food, but as Ian and Curt see in Colorado, the world behind it can be stomach turning.  At one feedlot, 100,000 cows stand shoulder-to-shoulder, doing their part to transform Iowa corn into millions of pounds of fat-streaked beef.

 

Following the trail of high fructose corn syrup, Ian and Curt hop attempt to make a home-cooked batch of the sweetener in their kitchen.  But their investigation of America’s most ubiquitous ingredient turns serious when they follow soda to its consumption in Brooklyn.  Here, Type II diabetes is ravaging the community, and America’s addiction to corny sweets is to blame.

 

The breadth of the problem is now clear: the American food system is built on the abundance of corn, an abundance perpetuated by a subsidy system that pays farmers to maximize production.  In a nursing home in the Indiana suburbs, Ian and Curt come face-to-face with Earl Butz, the Nixon-era Agriculture Secretary who invented subsidies.  The elderly Butz champions the modern food system as an “Age of plenty” Ian and Curt’s great-grandfathers only dreamed of.

.

 November pulls Ian and Curt back to Iowa.  Their 10,000-pound harvest seems as grotesque as it is abundant.  They haul their corn to the elevator and look on as it makes its way into a food system they have grown disgusted by.  At a somber farm auction, Ian and Curt decide to tell their landlord they want to buy the acre.  The next spring their cornfield has been pulled from production and planted in a prairie, a wild square surrounded by a sea of head-high corn.

 :}

OKOKOKOKOK So maybe corn IS killing us but will we miss it when its gone because of energy prices. Probably not one bit though the first winter maybe tough if gasoline goes to $100 a gallon. The first to go though will be the exporting of grain. Do you believe we actually pile billions of tons of corn on diesal power ships so that other people can refine (errr spend their energy on) it? They can’t eat it either.

For more:

Iowa Corn
Get info on biotechnology, corn products and Iowa corn growers.

Corn Palace Convention and Visitors Bureau
As seen in KING CORN, Mitchell, South Dakota’s Corn Palace is a monument to the country’s leading crop.

American Corn Growers Association
“America’s leading progressive commodity association, representing the interests of corn producers in 35 states.”

A Zillion Uses for Corn!
An extensive list of products that contain corn.

Putting DNA to Work: Improving Crops: From Teosinte to Corn
See photos of corn’s ancestor and read about how its genetic makeup has evolved.

EWG: Farm Subsidy Database
View graphs and databases on corn subsidies in the United States.

Mountains of Corn and a Sea of Farm Subsidies
Reprinted from a 2005 New York Times article, this piece examines how the country’s corn overproduction is affecting its farmers.

No-Till Farmer
Top tips on growing monoculture corn.

Corn Refiners Association
Learn about corn refining and resulting products.

High Fructose Corn Syrup
HFCS, how it’s made and how it affects your health, plus other links.

:}

Food And Oil – We are all gona die

Since the Peak Oil people have managed to scare the begeezus out of the whole world. I though that it was time to engage in a meditation on the Relationship between Food and Energy. Having sat through similar meditations on Religion and Energy Conservation (18 posts) and Energy Policy and the Presidential Candidates (17 posts) I can assure you this will not take more than 3 or 4 posts and will probably include Weird Bird Friday.

But let’s start with  Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Delimma and a film, King Corn, by Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis, to take an initial pass at the problem.

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

But before we do let’s do a little thought experiment because King Corn and the Omnivore’s Dilemma both ultimately fail in what they hope to accomplish.  In fact, I think that the high price of oil right now is being manipulated by the producers, the futures market and the refiners and it will come down. But as I have said to the Peak Oil people all along, we are maybe at the “oil Plateau”, but we are not at the “decline” part of the curve. It WILL COME. Thus, it is good to think about the situation to see what may happen.

As an aside here for another second. I have actually thought about farming for alot of my life because I believe that the world is warming because of our release of greenhouse gases, and that warming will destabalize our weather. That in effect would disrupt the farmers and thus the food supply. Under the “Peak Oil” senario what would happen is that all of the energy inputs into our industrial linear monocultural food chain would be withdrawn. This means no fertilizers, and no transportation for the food grown. Or maybe foods that can travel less distances. But eventually this would leaves us with no fuel to drive the tractors to plant the seeds and a loss of refrigeration. Or at least the type of refrigeration we are used to. If you believe their worst case senarios this could happen rather quickly. Think, as one of their leading bloggers recently said, about the impact of gasoline that costs 100$$ a gallon. I live about 6 or 7 miles from Springfield and I can tell you I would be walking to town at that point.

Still would we all die? If you mean ALL as Humanity, yes many of us would die if the worldwide food chain were disrupted. But think about it in another way, food would become trapped in the producing and exporting nations. So those countries would be awash in the foods that they produce. As we have seen in this last round of oil price increases the poorer countries of the world would face food riots, mass starvation, disease and death. In a moral cataclysm, the question for the 3rd world would be what to do with the bodies. Burying them would be dumb, burning them even worse…but should we recycle dead humans? Maybe we need to think about that.

In much of the world and even in parts of the third world what would happen is that we all would have to become hunters and gathers again. I am not saying that lives would not be lost, and that tremendous tumult would not result but at least initially we all would have to become small plot croppers like we did during WWII. When I mention Victory Gardens to the PO (peak oil) folks they go ballistic. They jump up and down and shout, “It’s the population stupid.”

 

So if the ALL in We Are All Going To Die is we folks in the US of A then let’s look at it. In 1940 there were 133 million people in the US, now there are roughly 280 million people. So a simple analysis could say that 150 million people here would die. That is to die back to the point where Victory Gardens were effective. But I have my doubts about that. Looking at the worst disaster to hit this country, the Flu Pandemic of 1918 the US suffered a net loss of population of 60 thousand people. That was .06% of the population.

 

I also am intellectually opposed to “science fiction” posturings where the rich rule the world and the poor eat Solent Green. Nonetheless I am not naïve enough to assume that millions won’t die here. The Pandemic actually wiped out a birth rate producing 1.5 million people a year before it “went negative”. Would we survive as a capitalist democracy? That is a much bigger question. It would be imperative in that first farming year that fuel prices spiked that every scrap of food grown is preserved. Capitalists might not be willing to pay the cost of that. Would many of us end up eating field corn or something made out of it. Heck yes. Would our livestock have to get by on grass? Oh yah. Would the megacities empty. I don’t know, but again the problem is corporate land ownership. That land would have to be expropriated to put small producers on it. Is democracy up for the test? It may have no choice.

 

Would I survive as a country boy living in the middle of Illinois? Yes, I believe I would. Country Boys Will Survive. God, I have always wanted to say that.

Georgia Power and The Southern Companies Make A Huge Mistake – Nuclear power is expensive

I feel sorry for the electric customers in Georgia. While everyone else in the nation is busy implementing the new Carbonless Economy or going green; Georgia Power is going (pick a color, say) BLACK. With estimated cost ranges of 4 – 8 billion $$, are they, what (?), shocked they got no bids. You can see the future in your little 8 Ball…Let’s see, cost overruns, construction delays, and by the time it comes to fuel it – no uranium. Alberta just banned the mining of it. Australia is on its way to doing the same. Australia has seen the future and it is Hot Rocks. Drilling down to the Earth’s core. Not putting hot rocks in a reactor.

 http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/05/05/daily56.html?ana=from_rss

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Georgia Power nuclear proposal rolls along

Atlanta Business Chronicle

eorgia Power reported Wednesday it has garnered no bids from its 2016-2017 base load capacity request for proposals.

Two weeks ago, it signed an engineering, procurement and construction contract with Westinghouse Electric Co. and The Shaw Group Inc.‘s Power Group. At that time, Georgia Power said it would submit a nuclear self-build option for consideration. Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) rules require market bids to be compared with self-build proposals, but no market bids were received, Georgia Power said.

Georgia Power, a unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. (NYSE: SO), said the self-build nuclear proposal will be reviewed by the Georgia PSC’s independent evaluator before the company submits a final recommendation to the Georgia PSC on Aug. 1 for approval. A final certification decision is expected in March 2009.

If certified by the Georgia PSC and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the two Westinghouse AP1000 units, with a capacity of 1,100 megawatts each, would be built at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant site near Waynesboro, Ga., and would be placed in service in 2016 and 2017.

“Demand for electricity continues to grow in the Southeast and in Georgia,” said Mike Garrett, Georgia Power president and CEO. “While we will continue to increase our emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, we must also add large-scale base load generation to meet growing energy needs. While nuclear power plants cost more to build, they now have lower fuel and operating costs than fossil fuel plants. Nuclear energy would add needed diversity to Georgia Power’s fuel mix at a time when fossil fuel prices are increasing significantly.”


:}

Once you decide to be bad, I guess you might as well be very bad:

:}

http://www.cleanenergy.org/takeAction/detail.cfm?ID=65

WHY THE GEORGIA PSC SHOULD REQUIRE GEORGIA POWER TO PUT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY AS A TOP PRIORITY:

  • Energy efficiency and renewable energy protect against increasing fossil fuel and natural gas prices
  • Hedge against energy supply shortages and disruptions
  • Avoid a growing dependence on natural gas
  • Reduce harmful air pollution and excessive water usage
  • Create local energy markets and increase employment
  • Avoid the high costs of building new conventional electric supplies.

Our Energy Security and Reliability is at Stake.

Currently, most of the energy used to power our homes and businesses comes from outside Georgia and the Southeast. There are no petroleum, natural gas, or uranium mines and reserves in the Southeast. According to the Energy Information Administration, Georgia’s electric power sector spent approximately $1.5 billion buying out of state coal and natural gas in 2003.(1)

Businesses and the Public Pay the Heavy Price.

Georgia and its utilities lag behind much of the country in investments in energy efficiency.  There is a lot of wasted energy that all utility customers must pay for when the utility builds more transmission lines and power plants than are necessary.  As fuel costs increase, consumers pay even more for this wasted energy.

Air Quality and Human Health Suffer.

Our current energy supply causes a great deal of damage to our health. Here are a few examples of the effects:

  • Soot and smog-forming nitrogen oxides are created from fossil fuel plants and engines.  These can harm children’s lung development and lead to asthma attacks, heart attacks and stroke.
  • Coal fired power plants release air-borne mercury that ends up in lakes, rivers and streams.  Neurological damage is linked with eating mercury-laden fish.
  • Tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that is produced at all nuclear reactors, acts like water in the body and can pass across the placenta to affect a developing fetus.

Water for Coal and Nuclear Plants Competes with Cities, Businesses and Farms.

Coal and nuclear power plants are heavy water users.  In 2001 nuclear Plant Vogtle used approximately 64 million gallons of water a day from the Savannah River and only returned 21 million gallons per day.  Coal plant Scherer withdrew 59 million gallons of water a day from Lake Juliette (2).  These and other fossil fuel and nuclear plants compete with local industries—from the carpet industries of Dalton to the peach growers in Tifton—for much needed water.  The burden that our energy system places on the state’s water supplies will become even more severe if Georgia Power’s proposed plans for new power plants are carried out.

GEORGIA’S UTILITY REVIEW PROCESS:

Georgia law requires that Georgia Power submit an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) every three years for approval. The PSC is charged to review the company’s plan and to approve it or require revisions.

The centerpiece of the Georgia Power plan:

  • Build new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta which would divert massive amounts of water away from the Savannah River, competing with other needs, as well as create more radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of safely; 
  • Expand and upgrade its transmission lines to support several new power plants and increased electricity demand;
  • Build a new gas pipeline through properties from Union City to Smyrna.

The secondary part of the plan includes:

  • Minimal energy efficiency measures through “pilot programs” with limited investment;
  • Develop only about 200 MW of new renewable energy that amounts to less than 1% of Georgia Power’s current energy capacity (most of the company’s “green power” is currently landfill gas).

To view Georgia Power’s proposed plan and responses by independent experts, go to http://www.psc.state.ga.us/ (enter #24505 in the docket search box, and view documents filed on Jan. 31, 2007 by the company and documents filed by other parties on May 4 and May 7). 

Then There Is What We Do To The Soldiers

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=TUC20061029&articleId=3620

Depleted Uranium Death Toll among US War Veterans Tops 11,000

Nationwide Media Blackout Keeps U.S. Public Ignorant About This Important Story

Global Research, October 29, 2006

American Free Press

The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component known as depleted uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi’s departure as secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department.

This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter.

“The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given,” Bernklau said. “However, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the U.S. military.”

The “malady [from DU] that thousands of our military have suffered and died from has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. . . . The terrible truth is now being revealed,” Bernklau said.

Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.

“The VA secretary was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” Bernklau said. “He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up.”

Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 518,739, Bernklau said.

“The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence,” Bernklau said. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from the second war] as ‘spectacular’—and a matter of concern.’ ”

While this important story appeared in a Washington newspaper and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure—a compelling sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about the terrible effects of this toxic weapon. (Veterans for Constitutional Law can be reached at (516) 474-4261.)

 Global Research Articles by James P. Tucker Jr.