Category Archives: no nukes

Kay Bailey Hutchison, Newt Gingritch, John Boehner and the President of the United States Are All Proven Liars

Posted on by
Reply

 Add to that list T. Boone Pickens and American Solutions (thus Grover Norquist). The high oil prices and the high gasoline prices were the direct result of Market Manipulation by commodity speculaters. It did not amount to the “single largest transfer of wealth overseas”, as Pickens claims. Almost all of those speculaters were right here in the good old US of A. They took billions of $$$ from poor and middle class people pockets. Those that could least afford it as their capitalist schemes brought the financial markets down.

Oil is now below 80$$ per barrel and gas is below 3$$ per gallon. Not a single new well has been drilled. No appreciable amount of oil has been added to the system. In other words, no new “supply” was added to the “market” and yet prices are falling. Hmmm so when are people going to go to jail?

 But bigger questions remains. Now that the market has been destabilized by speculators how low can the price of oil go? The Saudi’s estimate that it costs them 40$$ to put a barrel of oil on the deck of a ship, and ironically another 10$$ to ship it. Can the price of oil drop below 50$$ a barrel? And what happens then?

The Big Oil Companies worst fears have arrived. As millions of Americans (yours truely included) shed billions of miles of driving reducing demand for gasoline in unprecidented fashion, what will the outcome be for the automobile industry and what is left of America’s manufaturing base.

Oh did I mention – When are people going go to jail for this “harmless little prank”?

 www.yuwantitwhen.com

wreck.jpg

Presidential Energy Policy – What if Community Energy Systems was running for President?

Posted on by
Reply

What would our collective Presidential Energy Policy look like? :

1. Ban the sale of Gasoline and Diesel as of January 2015, except 1 gallon containers and Heavy Transport Trucks.

2. Ban Diesel and Gasoline sales to Heavey Transport Trucks by 2018.

This would allow everyone to keep mowing their grass and having their backyard barbeques while the USA shifts its transportation capacity to cleaner safer fuels.

3. Ban the Burning of coal in Electrical Generating Stations in 2020.

That would require switching all those plants to another fuel source, probably natural gas.

4. Fund 3 Hot Rocks Power Stations. One in California to replace Diablo Nuclear Power Plant, One to replace Clinton Nuclear Power Plant in Illinois and one to replace Savannah Nuclear Power Plant in Georgia. This would begin the proceess of Converting our economy to geothermal energy on existing sites where Nukes should not be in the first place.

This would proceed for all Nuclear Power Plants in the nation.

 5. Create and support manditory energy conservation programs in both the residential market and the commercial market to reduce their consumption by 50%.

Lets insulate and modernize our world.

6. Order all Landfill operaters and Waste Haulers to begin the mining of all landfills and dumps for metals, glass, plastics and and paper products. Compost the rest.

7. Mandate that all materials be recycled with the goal of a steady state materials economy in the USA by 2020

8. Using tax incentives to increase the Market share of solar, geothermal and wind generation by 25% per year until the USA is largely energy self sufficient.

9. Create a maglev train system in the USA

10. Create a light rail system in the top 50 major markets.

11. Ban the sale of diesel fuel to the railroads in 2025.

12. Open the Yucca Mountain repository by Executive Order if necessary and order all spent nuclear materials to be stored there.

To pay for this I would cut the military budgets of the following services: reduce the Navy to 2 active Fleets, one on the West Coast, one on the East Coast; reduce the Army to 4 batallions; reduce the Airforce to 4 Airwings; leave the Marines alone.

To pay for these policies I would slash the Pentagon staff in half, and the “spying budget” by 1/3.

To pay for these policies I would close the Federal Office of Education. Then I would start in on some of the stupid Federal Budget items that we as tax payers fund, like closing the National Helium Repository in Texas. We sure won’t need the Strategic Petroleum Resevre.

This program would create million of new good paying jobs. Put this country back to work and not flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Barack Obama Beats John McCain – On Energy Policy that is and it wasn’t even close.

Posted on by
Reply

And it really did not have to be this way. One substitution could have changed the balance. If instead of 45 Nuclear Generating Stations he would have said 45 Hot Rocks Stations, then he would have generated as much capitol, created as many new jobs and generated as much electricity as his 45 Nukes. In fact it would have made him greener than Barack who I pointed out has “put in a little bit” for everybody and ends up maybe not getting the job done. The other place that Barack wins is with energy conservation. It is a big part of his plan and is nowhere in John’s. So all in all Obama’s plan is the best.

This is no endorsement. There is more to the Presidency than Energy Policy. Foreign Policy,  Military Policy, and Fiscal Policy are probably more important for his initial year in office. But Energy relates to all of those issues in an integral way.

And Obama has come so far:

www.obamamagazine.com

obama1.jpg

weblogs.newsday.com

obama3.jpg

 barackobama.imagelibrarys.com

obama2.jpg

www.politicogod.com

obama4.jpg

:}

The last one is my all time favorite because it was taken in Metropolis Illinois, during the Superman Festival. 

:}

Barack Obama’s Global Warming Policies – OH he calls it Climate Change as well

Posted on by
Reply

Obama’s Climate Change Initiatives are kinda short, but at least he addresses energy conservation. This in a country that should only use 9% of the world’s energy but uses 25% instead.

 http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#emissions

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

  • Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.The Obama-Biden cap-and-trade policy will require all pollution credits to be auctioned, and proceeds will go to investments in a clean energy future, habitat protections, and rebates and other transition relief for families.
  • Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change. Obama and Biden will re-engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) — the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem. They will also create a Global Energy Forum of the world’s largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.

« Return to New Energy for America

 Create Millions of New Green Jobs

  • Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
  • Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source — Energy Efficiency.Obama and Biden will set an aggressive energy efficiency goal — to reduce electricity demand 15 percent from projected levels by 2020.
  • Weatherize One Million Homes Annually. Obama and Biden will make a national commitment to weatherize at least one million low-income homes each year for the next decade, which can reduce energy usage across the economy and help moderate energy prices for all.
  • Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.
  • Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.

« Return to New Energy for America

:} 

Well at least with Obama it is short enough that people will likely read through it. Still there is the nasty Cap and Trade stuff that will do no good for anyone. We are up against some very hard changes that we need to make in our industrial infastructure. Coal and Oil just won’t cut it as energy sources anymore. Clean Coal technology is a myth. While Obama talks about cutting emmission by 80% he does not say whether that is current emmissions or the 1990 emmission levels. Again there is just enough GOOD energy policy here to give one hope, but enough BAD energy policy here to think that he is pandering again.

AND the Winner is? Try back on Monday this has tuckered me out. 

:}

Barack Obama’s Energy Policies – The Pandering continues

Posted on by
Reply

I mean look, Oil Producers are just that and OIL is just a commodity. What we really need to do is to quit using the stuff for things like transportation, making plastics and heating homes. The last is just dumb. Every last fuel oil heated home should be outlawed. Their equipment yanked and recycled. What we need in this country is a rational energy policy that shifts us to solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy. 1/2 of this country’s population lives on or near a coast line and yet NO ONE is even mentioning tidal power. So this is what you say if you want to be elected President.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more#oil

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

  • Increase Fuel Economy Standards. Obama and Biden will increase fuel economy standards 4 percent per year while providing $4 billion for domestic automakers to retool their manufacturing facilities in America to produce these vehicles.
  • Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015. These vehicles can get up to 150 miles per gallon. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we should work to ensure these cars are built here in America, instead of factories overseas.
  • Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
  • Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Obama and Biden will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon in our fuels 10 percent by 2020. Obama and Biden will also require 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels to be phased into our fuel supply by 2030.
  • A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases. Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
  • Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas. An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

« Return to New Energy for America

I like the “use it or lose it” part. Especially since the International Energy Organization is going to force re-estimation of proven, know and simple reserves to reflect reality. But one could ask for so much more. How about declaring Hanford, WA a National Sacrifice Zone and immediately storing all low level radioactive material there? 

:}

:} 

John McCain Capriciousness Will Cost Him The Election – The myth of the multiple Nukes

Posted on by
Reply

McCain is a hot headed shoot from the hip cowboy Republican and his Nuclear Policy, such as it is, shows it. He is George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove combined without the nasty little snicker. He could have stated a policy pro-nuclear. He could have stated a policy of 3 or 4 Nuclear Power Plants, with a “we’ll see how it goes” clause. He could have done something helpful as a Republican and said, “We will open the waste depository in Nevada within the first year of our presidency.” Something no Democrat could offer because of Harry Reid.

But instead he wants to try to build 45 Nuclear Power Plants. That is 1 for almost every state in the Nation! That with the credit markets paralyzed and a new generation of “light reactors” that have not been tested in the US. Then he goes on to say with “a goal of building 100”. This is so off the charts as to be dismissable. That is, it is impossible. So why so over the top? BECAUSE THAT IS what John wants to do. That’s it. So what else does John want that is inconceivable to most of us? But if he was President of the US he could get just because he wanted it? War with Iran? War with Russia? More to the point a Florida surrounded by oil wells? A move to cripple the solar and wind turbine markets? T. Boone Pickens Plan? What?

That is pretty scary….

John McCain And The Myth Of The Multiple Nukes – A goal is 100 Nukes or Double our current capacity

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote in the title of a previous post that John McCain just doesn’t get it about energy policy. A commenter took me to task for attacking McCain personally not his policies. Well lets see, he wants to build 45 Nukes to start. That would come with a price tag of 150 billion$$s and if you have looked at the credit markets lately, that just makes no sense. Georgia Power is about to try to “self-finance” 1 Nuke at a cost of 3 billion$$s. I have serious doubts about whether they shall succeed.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

:}  So where to start?We do not have the skilled workers to build them.We don’t have the money to build them.

We don’t have safe sites to put them on.

We don’t have the fuel to put in them.

We couldn’t afford the electricity they would produce.

Not to mention all the energy that we would have to burn to build them and to fuel them.

But the worst mistake here is that we have NO PLACE TO put the waste.

All this to just boil water?

So we leave our great grandchildren with the legacy of radioactive waste, financial debt and expensive energy that they can’t use?!? Look if there was a metal or and an award for NOT GETTING it, John McCain should be awarded it immediately.

:}
 

Nuclear Future – Probably Not – Or as W says Nuclr

Posted on by
3

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

:}

Barack Obama Or John McCain Whose Energy Policies Are Better? Time will tell

Posted on by
Reply

I am not even going to get into this until after the conventions. There will be plenty of time to talk about it then. Right now it looks like we are on a fault line. One guy wants to get us off hydrocarbons as fa uel and headed towards a new green future. The other guy wants nukes, clean coal, and “drill often and drill here”. I will let you guys figure out whom is who.

The Yucca Mountain Operating Permit Arrived In Washington Today!

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Local tribal and city leaders lauded the action.

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!

:}