Nuclear Power – Mom all my friends are doing it, why can’t I

All my friends have nukes and they are building more. How come I can’t have one? Huh mom, Huh?

Lats see:

They are expensive,

They are dangerous,

They generate waste that is toxic for 1,000’s of years,

It is an inappropriate use of technology,

They are not sustainable,

And I said no!

But Moooom Everyone’s doing it?

I said NO!

Now go outside and PLAY!

http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/index.php?menu=english&page=index

Réseau “SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE “

Network phasing out the nuclear age

 

An alliance of 821 French organisations

Download our presentation document

If you are a group, please join us!

GATHERING TOGETHER TO CREATE A NUCLEAR-FREE FUTURE

The Network ‘SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE’ is currently the main French antinuclear coalition, with a membership of 821 organizations and 18986 individual subscribers.
It is completely independent, entirely funded by donations and the subscriptions from its members.

Since 1997, 821 organizations have joined our Network “Sortir du nucléaire”.

Our mission is to unite everyone concerned with phasing out nuclear power.

Only  by combining our efforts can we build up enough strength to achieve concrete results.

Our goal is to convince France to phase out nuclear power generation by  :

  •  rethinking its energy policy
  •  improving the efficiency of electricity use
  •  developing alternative and sustainable generation scenarios.

The Network SORTIR DU NUCLEAIRE :

  • supports actions for phasing out nuclear power, whether local, national or international,
  • launches petition and information campaigns,
  • is a resource center for nuclear power and sustainable alternatives : information, documents, access to experts and lecturers,
  • informs the public about the dangers of nuclear power and solutions for phasing it out thanks to its website, its quarterly magazine Sortir du Nucléaire and the publication of thematic documents aimed at the general public,
  • has a PR policy and close contact with the media for nuclear-related issues,
  • aims to inform elected representatives, local decision-makers, trade-unions, associations about all nuclear related issues.

Why phase out nuclear power ?

  • A nuclear accident provokes countless victims and leaves vast tracts of land uninhabitable for thousands of years. Is such risk morally permissible ?
  • There exists no possibility of rendering nuclear waste harmless. It remains a hazard for tens of thousands of years and more.
  • The real cost of nuclear power is very high if all the expenses are honestly taken into account : public scientific research, decommissioning of nuclear power facilities, endless management of nuclear waste …
    Part of the radioactive material produced in nuclear reactors has the potential and is used for hostile military use and for atomic bombs.
  • It may be that nuclear power contributes only small amount of greenhouse gases, but its waste contaminates the earth for millions of years. There is no choosing the lesser of two evils. The goal of a responsible, sustainable energy policy should be : no to nuclear, no to greenhouse gases.
  • The large component of nuclear energy in French power generation is an exception : we are the only country in the world to make such a confident bet on nuclear power. Neighbouring countries such as Italy, Germany, Belgium have already chosen to phase out nuclear power. Therefore it is also possible to do so in France.

How can we phase out nuclear

power ?

 :}The Answer to that is very carefully

Then there are all these folks:

http://www.nuclear-free.com/english/frames7.htm

British Columbia shuts door on uranium projects

25 APR’08, VANCOUVER–British Columbia has slapped an official moratorium on uranium exploration and development in the province, reinforcing a long-standing informal ban on the nuclear fuel and dashing the hopes of companies that hoped to take advantage of soaring prices for the commodity. The ban, announced yesterday, makes B.C. a no-go zone for uranium and confirms a moratorium put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province (more from The Globe and Mail)

Navajo Challenge Uranium Mining Permit on Tribal Lands

SANTA FE, New Mexico, April 19, 2008 (ENS)–For the first time in history, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, will be challenged in federal appeals court for its approval of a source materials license for an in situ leach uranium mine. The Navajo communities of Crownpoint and Church Rock, New Mexico will fight the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the permitted company, Hydro Resources, Inc., demanding that they stay off Navajo lands in New Mexico… The communities’ case is being presented with the assistance of the community group Eastern Navajo Dine against Uranium Mining, or ENDAUM, and [2006 Nuclear-Free Future Award recipient] Southwest Research and Information Center (more from Environment News Service)

Inuit halt Aurora in Labrador

9 APR.’08, TORONTO–Aurora Energy Resources Inc.’s hopes of extracting uranium in Labrador were dealt a crippling blow after Inuit in the region imposed a three- year moratorium on uranium mining. The Nunatsiavut government voted 8-7 in favour of the ban which will prevent Aurora or any other mining firm from producing the radioactive metal until at least 2011. Shares of Vancouver-based Aurora plunged almost 34 per cent in response to the vote results, which became effective immediately (more from Andy Hoffman in the Globe and Mail)

:}

:}

Nuclear Power Is The Future – Probably not…

People who tout Nukes as the Future take for granted that there is fuel out there.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421123231.htm

Questioning Nuclear Power’s

Ability

To Forestall Global Warming

ScienceDaily (Apr. 22, 2008) — Rising energy and environmental costs may prevent nuclear power from being a sustainable alternative energy source in the fight against global warming, according to a new study.


    In the article, Gavin M. Mudd and Mark Diesendorf investigate the “eco-efficiency” of mining and milling uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. Advocates of nuclear power claim it has the potential to mitigate global warming. Detractors, however, link it to dangers such as proliferation of nuclear weapons and problems such as permanent disposal of nuclear waste.

The study points out that supplies of high-grade uranium ore are declining, which may boost nuclear fuel’s environmental and economic costs, including increases in energy use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, newly discovered uranium deposits may be more difficult to extract in the future — a further drain on economic and environmental resources.

“The extent of economically recoverable uranium, although somewhat uncertain, is clearly linked to exploration effort, technology and economics but is inextricably linked to environmental costs, such as energy, water, and chemicals consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and broader social issues,” the authors say. “These issues are critical to understand in the current debate over nuclear power, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change, especially with respect to ascribing sustainability to such activities as uranium milling and mining.”
 

Don’t believe me? What about the guys and gals at MIT?

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/080201furber-warf-plotkin.php

Or maybe the the Australian Monthly Review?

The following article on “The Future of Nuclear Power” by Robert D. Furber, James C. Warf, and Sheldon C. Plotkin, scientists with a long history of addressing this issue, seeks to lay bare the realities of nuclear power. Although much more difficult to read than the typical MR article, we encourage all of our readers to study it closely. Its conclusion?: “any building of new [nuclear] plants would be a serious mistake….the future of nuclear power, as we know it, is very poor at best.”

The careful analysis of Furber, Warf, and Plotkin thus points to the irrationality of current proposals to resort massively to nuclear power as an answer to global warming. In order for nuclear power to make a dent in the global warming problem it would be necessary to build hundreds of nuclear power plants around the world, each one taking ten years to construct, and each an enormous hazard to the earth, generating radioactive wastes lasting for hundreds or thousands or millions of years. The most important principle of environmental thought is that of safeguarding the earth for future generations. To turn to nuclear power as a solution to global warming would be to abandon that trust.—Ed.

:}
:}

Beware Of Energy Scams – this one over the internet, the sender: Gas Secret

As I have reported with the State Journal Register and the National Geographic Magazine about advertising “Energy Conservation” space heaters and Gasoline Fraud…Now they have taken to the “broadband”. These people are scum so I will not post their internet address. Its enough to say that there are no secret ways to improve your internal combustion engine’s “performance”. Those engines have only been around for over 100 years. If you get this email, please reply – Kiss My Grits!

 “Did You Know Your Car Engine Wastes 20%
Of The
Gas You Buy? – Ethos Is Easy
To Use, And Starts Saving You Up To 70¢
Per Gallon on Gas – Guaranteed.”

Now You Can Keep Your Engine Healthy, Create 30%
Less Pollution And Save Up To 70¢ Per Gallon Off Your Gas Bill.
With a 100% Natural Bio-Degradable Product, Made by a California
Based Emissions Company, with a 10 Year Old Track Record

 CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM LIARS

:}

Let me tell you the story:

How The Smog In California Forced
Oil Companies To Do Something They
Didn’t Want To…

 I’m not sure if you ever had the chance to visit California in the mid 70s. It was a nightmareenvironmentally speaking.

The smog was so thick you could hardly see 15 miles out.

There was so much smog and pollution in the air, that if you were to stand on your balcony facing the mountains in Southern California, the only way you would know that the mountains were there would be if you had a map showing you so.

Children in poorer families in the suburbs were getting asthma and lung problems at record numbers, the problem was really getting out of hand.

If someone didn’t do something about the air, L.A was heading to a future where wearing gas masks could be common.

CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM LIARS

Kiss My Grits! 

:}

McCain’s Gas Tax Proposal – So the time for us has just about ran out

John McCain like every other Republican in America wants to avoid what their 30 years of dereliction of duty has wraught. Nixon, Regan and Bush (my version of lions and tigers and bears, oh my!) all increased our dependence on oil and easy Chinese money. Bush in particular ushered us to the brink of a world depression. Grover Norquist, who wants to take us back to the 1930s is about to succeed:

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_norquist.html

BILL MOYERS: If states refuse to raise taxes to fix some of those problems we’ve just seen, that certainly won’t bother my next guest. He’s a sworn opponent of all taxes. He’s also the most powerful man in Washington not to hold a public office.

Officially, Grover Norquist heads an organization called Americans for Tax Reform where for almost 20 years now he has crusaded for lower taxes and less government. Unofficially he’s been the linchpin in Washington for the conservative revolution that now controls the government. His weekly meetings of activists became the politburo of strategy where all stripes of conservatives bear their differences in order to bury their hatchet in Democrats. From the Christian coalition to log cabin Republicans to the National Rifle Association on whose board he sits, this Harvard graduate keeps the troops on mission and on message. His success prompted Senator Hillary Clinton to muse aloud, if only Democrats had a Grover Norquist. Welcome to NOW.

GROVER NORQUIST: Glad to be with you.

BILL MOYERS: Well, you do have it all. You have the White House, the Congress, the regulatory agencies, the courts more or less. The last time Democrats, liberal Democrats, held that kind of power, they made some mistakes like the war in Vietnam that they couldn’t sustain the support of at home, emphasized parochial interests at the expense of the sort of bedrock universal values of American society. What are the errors you think conservatives running everything could make?

GROVER NORQUIST: I think it’s very important to always make sure that you’re talking to the entire coalition and to as many Americans as possible; not to go chasing after one little group or another. The Democrats would bring new groups into their party and not notice that larger groups are going out the back door. And so what I try and do whenever I work on an issue or work with political leaders is make sure that when you’re talking about a new approach, how does that…how does the entire coalition view that new approach? Is there a better or different way to do it that irritates fewer people and that satisfies a larger constituency?

BILL MOYERS: And that’s what you did at your Wednesday morning meetings? Those meetings became famous, for all kinds of conservatives being in there hammering things out.

GROVER NORQUIST: And we now have 27 versions of that at the state capital level, including one in New York City. So we’re taking the model of the “leave us alone” coalition from the national level to the state level as well.

BILL MOYERS: “Leave us alone?”

GROVER NORQUIST: Um-hmm. Look, the center right coalition in American politics today is best understood as a coalition of groups and individuals that on the issue that brings them to politics what they want from the government is to be left alone. Taxpayers, don’t raise my taxes. Property owners, don’t restrict or limit my property. Home schoolers, let me educate my own kids. Gun owners, don’t restrict my Second Amendment rights. All communities of faith, Evangelical Christians, conservative Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, people want to practice their own religion and be left alone to raise their own kids.

BILL MOYERS: Do you have any sympathy for those states we just saw a few moments ago? Under the president’s plan, those states do not expect any direct aid from Uncle Sam. Do you have any advice for them?

GROVER NORQUIST: Sure, two things. The most important thing for President Bush and the federal government to do is to create a pro-growth economic policy because its economic growth that brings in more revenue for states and local governments. At the state level what they really have to do is take a long run view and limit the growth of spending, put limits on how much you spend. And then California, the state owns a whole bunch of land and other things that it could sell off it doesn’t need, and it needs to figure out which of those government jobs need to be in government, and what can be privatized or contracted out.

BILL MOYERS: You’re on record as saying, my goal is to cut government in half in 25 years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bath tub. Is that a true statement?

And the Holy Satanic trilogy of George Mason University, Southern Methodist University and the University of Chicago have supplied all the intellectual fire power. SMU is where George Bush, jr. will try to lock up his presidential papers and avoid jail,

:}

Oh but I digress…One of the finest posters at The Oil Drum JoulesBurn who Blogs at:

http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/

Had this little cutey today:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3855#more

McCain’s Gas Pains: Gas “Tax Holidays” A Good Idea?

For immediate release from John McCain’s campaign:

John McCain, who just hours earlier proposed a “tax holiday” in which the 18 cent federal tax on gasoline would be suspended during the summer driving season, has reconsidered and has instead proposed that the U.S. gallon be redefined to be equal in volume to the current U.S. quart. “This will immediately lower the price at the pump by 75%, providing visible relief to millions of Americans”, quipped McCain. “I rejected the idea of setting it equal to the liter, for obvious reasons”.When questioners suggested that this move wouldn’t actually change how much consumers spend to fill their tanks, McCain responded “Well, neither would my previous proposal”.

In unrelated election news, the McCain campaign announced that P.T. Barnum has been posthumously appointed as their policy director. Also, Hillary Clinton has proposed a suspension of the law of gravity, at least during the summer flying season, to help the beleaguered airline industry. Barack Obama reportedly had no comment on these suggestions, other than to say that Americans are definitely “atwitter” about gas prices.

We interrupt this vacation from reality with the following observations…(under the fold…)

  • As gasoline is a commodity for which prices are determined by supply and demand, lowering the price without increasing the supply will likely increase demand (usage). Prices will rise again to compensate.
  • The 18.4 cents per gallon that is now flowing into the US treasury, and which is then spent building roads, bridges, and mass transit, will instead flow to oil companies — particularly those in foreign countries, since the US imports over half of its oil.
  • Targeting the current gasoline tax instead for the development of alternative transportation and ways of using energy more efficiently will provide more lasting solutions to the current energy and economic crises than short-term attempts to fix the problem.

Juche – a simple name for a nasty idea. Kim Il Sungism

Jodie Foster, Pregnant Man, Iran, Prince Philip, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, American Idol, Obama, China, Beyonce, Rolling Stones. (sorry for the deception but please read below)

Normally I wouldn’t bother to cover this but since it’s on the list I felt I needed to “dis” it as much as I could. I even took the time to get Buzzes top searches for the week to punch it up a bit. I even checked every category Energy Tough Love has to publicize this human indignity. The list of “Religions” that I used to start this meditation on the relationship between Religion and the Environment placed Juche well down on the list but with 18 million adherents that still alot of folks. I had never heard of it before and I even asked a couple of people if they had heard of it. Imagine my suprise when I typed it into a search engine and up popped this Prick who claimed he was god:

www.dictatorofthemonth.com

kim.jpg

During his lifetime he forced millions of people in North Korea to worship him. Can you imagine anything more degrading or disgusting then a man who points a loaded gun at your head and demands that you treat him like a god. You must pray to him. Oh most Divine Leader. Makes me want to puke. But then he is followed by this buffoon:

www.beconfused.com

jong.jpg

Now they are “worshiping” something no better than a trained monkey. If they had an ENVIRONMENTAL group in North Korea, I wish them the best of luck but I ain’t gonna publish it. I ain’t even gona type it into a search engine. If anybody ever deserved to get a nuke shoved up his poop shoot. This would be it.

National Geographic Magazine and State Journal Register Publish Fraudulent Advertisement

I will not even publish the advertisements because they are designed to rip off Senior Citizens, Poor People, and the less educated/intelligent. Let’s just say that the Amish Heater (HeatSurge) and the EdenPure Heater are the biggest rip-offs since FREE GOLD COINS. Deregulated Capitalism produces the acceptance of theft as the normal course of day. Remember the Snake Oil salesmen of the 1930’s. (There Baaaaaack) Well they are back and George Bush thinks they are cute. Yah know, “Only a stupid (make up your own derogative ethnic or class descripter) would buy one of those. Heck they deserve it.”

For the Record. The most efficient use of electricity is to use it to generate work. In other words it is most efficiently used to run pumps and motors. It is not an efficient way to generate heat (or light for that matter)…though that can be a reusable byproduct of the work. To use it purely to generate heat is incredibly wasteful, BUT any Watt used to generate heat can generate something like 500 degrees of heat if used as efficiently as possible. Neither heater listed above is efficient. Resistance heating is the most efficient use of that electricity if a Person must use it that way. Anyone can go to the local hardware store and buy one for 30$$$.

I can understand the State Journal Register ripping people off with its new “advertising is everything” attitude, but the National Geographic? That is atrocious:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071129184202AAQF5w3

ga_ans_uh_logo.gif

   Just Wondering asked the

question; Do the Heat

 Surge Fireless Flame

heaters that the Amish sell

 really work?

Best Answer – Chosen by Asker

The ads (which are all over the country) are very misleading.

1. A coffee maker uses a large amount of electricity for about a minute. It’s true that the so-called “miracle” heater uses less electricity than a coffee maker DURING THAT ONE MINUTE. But you’re going to have the heater running for a lot longer than one minute a day. So it’s going to cost you a lot more to operate than a coffee maker does.

The heater will cost you around 12 cents per hour to operate. The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is 8 cents per 1,000 watts per hour, so 1,500 watts costs 12 cents per hour on average. This is true for ANY 1,500 watt electric heater.

2. The ads say that the heater produces an “amazing” 5,119 BTU (a measure of heat energy), but ALL 1,500 watt electric heaters produce 5,119 BTU. If an electric heater was 100% efficient, it would convert 1,500 watts of electricity into 5,120 BTU of heat. All electric heaters are nearly 100% efficient, and this has been true for decades. The “miracle” heater is no more efficient than any other electric hea

http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=machines&Number=262499&fpart=2

hwwlogosmallforums.gif

Quote:


Let me offer my thinking on the edenpure heater as I sit, somewhat cold, in my office trying to decide whether or not to buy one. As I understand this, a quartz infrared heater is good at heating objects rather than the air. This can keep a person relatively warm in a cool room if they stay seated or at least within the arc of the infrared lamp. That makes it relatively more efficient than heating the entire space around them, even if the cost/btu looks unfavorable.



Welcome to the forums marc13.
Did you notice that they don’t give a BTU rating, or a wattage rating? Your assumptions about quartz heaters are correct, but infrared I’m not sure of. I haven’t found much about that type, but do take notice of what some of us have suggested as alternates to this thing. In the sites I visited from other boards, I didn’t see even one post recommending them (any style). The edenpure in EVERY case was concidered to be highly overpriced and very INefficient. JM ( Junkman462 summed it up very well, have a look.

Quote:


The Edenpure seems to be a hybrid system. It uses an infrared lamp to heat a copper heat-exchanger. That would make it less efficient that using the infrared to heat you directly, but potentially more efficient in heating the entire room, because the infrared is (might be?) more efficient than oil or gas in heating the heat-exchanger.



May I ask where you found this information? I’ve looked all over the place and couldn’t find anything more than the manufacturers *claims. Nothing about copper heat exchanger. 

Quote:


If the room has relatively high humidity, this effect would be enhanced by the heat carrying capacity of the humidity (I just stepped over the bounds of what I think I understand).



But from what I understand, it doesn’t heat the room, just objects it’s pointed at.

Quote:


As an investment, the Edenpure also has the advantage of any portable heat source in that it is portable. So I’m still a little skeptical, but still considering it. Like virtually all technologies, but might not be the best for all applications, but it might be the best for some.



At that price, I seriously doubt it. 

Quote:


I’d appreciate any corrections on my thinking or understanding of thermodynamics. Thanks



Sounds like you have the jist of it, though I WILL bow to MANY others here.
Al

Why would anyone pay 300 – 400$$$ for something you can get for 30$$$. The offending publications say “ITS LEGAL”. The answer is so is Pedophelia if you don’t get caught or 7 years after the event.
>

Taylorville Energy Center Is A Really Bad Idea – Deep Well Injection (DWI) is not good in Illinois

First a slight mea culpa. A gentleman from an Advance Gasification Publication emailed me and took me to task for being a “know nothing” blogger. Is that great or what! He pointed out that my description of Gasification was flawed. On each Blog I put up all kinds of site addresses like Wikipedia and others so that people can “click and read” about any subject I Blog about if they wanted to. I do not view myself as a babysitter. Google being what it is (or any other search engine for that matter) I don’t even really have to put up the links. A reader can just type in the subject and get a list sources for their own selves. I do it to make it easy for people to READ about what I am writing about and to show the sources I am using.

If you go to the site below you can see the gentleman in all his indignant fury:

http://gasification-igcc.blogspot.com/

For the record the hydrogen to run the plant come from electrolysis like catalytic effect from steam heated in part by the coal. Also for the record this is a dumb way to generate electricity, almost as dumb using coal to make steam. Solar is more direct and more efficient than this crap ever could be. Also for the record, I try to write for the normal Joes and Jackies in the world. The only thing they care about is that the “lights come on when they flip the switch” and the health of their children. It’s the health and welfare of their children and their grand children where this whole project falls apart.

Back to DWI. Illinois is a real bad place to put a Commercial Toxic Waste Deep Well Injection Site and that is what Tenaska is trying to do. The Energy Portion of the Project is In One Sense is a smokescreen. If they get their financial way and get around regulation of the site By the ICC By declaring it an Independent Power producer AND pass Legislation Mandating the Purchase of the Power by Illinois Utilities then they could make a fortune. More on that later. Trust me much more. But lets say, for the moment that RATE BASING a 2 Billion $$$ Power Plant ain’t happening and that a 2 Billion $$$ Power Plant will be “Too Expensive To Meter” What’s the game here?

There are only 5 Commercial Toxic Waste DWI’s in the nation:

http://www.ehso.com/cssepa/tsdfdeepwells.php

 deepwells.bmp

 

As you can see they all sit atop spent or partially spent rock trapped oil fields. Though there is no evidence that these sites are fool proof they at least have the intellectual possibility of succeeding. Most of the other Non-Commercial Toxic Waste DWI sites that are usually operated to get rid of human waste and wastewater have proved troublesome at best.

http://www.stopthetoxicwells.com/

http://eelink.net/EJ/well.html

 

Their failure rate for something that was supposed, “to solve the waste problems” in the US have not worked out so well.

When you look at Illinois, which has 3 major rivers the Mississippi, the Wabash and the Illinois, and a soft coal-filled  Center:

 

herrin_coal_map.jpg

 

then putting a Commercial Toxic DWI right in its center seems unjustified. But think about this for a moment once it is open who else might dump their Toxic stuff there as well? It is widely rumored in the Environmental and Energy communties that the only reason that Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin signed as a “supporting Governor” is that he believes he could ship some of his States sequestered carbon here. This is what a proper sequestration system in North Dakota looks like:

m-24_weyburn-co2.jpg

www.netl.doe.gov/…/core_rd/mmv/41149.html

 

Build a PIPELINE to the nearest  stone encased oilfield. Hint: It’s not in Illinois.

 

FutureGen Is A Very Bad Idea – At least as formulated now

As I have said many times, collaboration between Environmentalists and Industry is never a good idea because the Environmentalists have to sacrifice some of their integrity to participate. We have no time for that now. Every little bit of the Earth that is unsullied is now sacred.

www.futuregenalliance.org

www.futuregenforillinois.com

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FutureGen


How can a project that has 2 of its own web sites and a Wikipedia listing be so wrong? Well let’s see COST?

Officials vow to

 not give up on

FutureGen

Durbin blames politics for decision to scrap plant

By DAVID MERCERTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS

CHAMPAIGN — Officials promised Wednes­day to fight the Department of Energy’s decision to scrap a futuristic, low-pollution power plant planned for central Illinois, but the leader of the state’s congressional delegation seemed resigned to its end.Sen. Dick Durbin said he hopes to fund the $1.8 billion FutureGen power plant through ear­marks in the federal budget, but wasn’t opti­mistic it would work.“If the administration doesn’t support it, we’ve seen that this president is willing to use his veto pen over and over again,” Durbin said. “Without the support of the administration, it’s an uphill struggle.”Durbin spoke not long after Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said publicly what he’d told members of Illinois’ congressional delegation and Illinois economic development officials in a private meeting Tuesday.Rather than spend money on FutureGen, which was to have been built by a consortium of coal and power companies in Mattoon using mainly federal funds, the DOE plans to put its fi­nances into a handful of projects around the country that would demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon dioxide from commercial power plants.“This restructuring … is an all-around better deal for Americans,” Bodman, an Illinois native, said in making the announcement to scuttle the program.The department will now solicit industry ap­plications for participation in the new projects. The idea is for the government to pay for build­ing the carbon capture and storage facilities and industry to build the modern coal-burning power plant. Each project would be designed to capture 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the lead­ing greenhouse gas linked to global warming, of­ficials said.The coal and power companies planning to build the plant, known as the FutureGen Al­liance, issued a statement saying it “remains committed to keeping FutureGen on track” but it was unclear how that would be possible without the federal funding.FutureGen was envisioned as a unique re­search project that would trigger development of a virtually pollution-free coal plant where carbon dioxide emissions would be captured and buried deep beneath the earth.


>
>

For a listing of the last ten AP postings on FutureGen go here.

Click on the Length of Search box and pick Archive, the type in FutureGen in the submit Box and click submit.

The Project escalated in cost from 750,000 million $$$ to 1.8 billion $$$ in a little less than 5 years. That is more than enough to build a “new generation” nuke on the same site. But think about this. What would it actually cost. We all know that typical Utility Construction Projects come in with at least 20% cost over runs and sometime as high as 40% is acceptable. Which means that the real cost would likely hover at just under 3 billion $$$. Can anyone say Too Cheap To Meter???

The Energy Market has Always Been About Fraud, Ripoffs and Scams

From the very first shallow pit coal mines to the monumental fraud that is nuclear generated electricity, the history of the energy markets is the same. It’s filled with, fraud, schemes, lies and a 1000 year history of wasted money and burst bubbles.

See for instance, There Will Be Blood

www.paramountvantage.com/blood

or any history of the energy biz:

http://austin.about.com/cs/bushbiographies/a/bush_background.htm

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012650

But when energy prices skyrocket like they are now the cheap hucksters ooze out of the woodwork. I am not even going to put this frauds web page up here for the curious. This was the first page up in a google search of Useful Energy Practices…Shame on google.

FOR THE RECORD YOU CAN NOT USE WATER IN A GASOLINE POWERED INTERNAL COMBUSTION  ENGINE! 

This page may not function properly in Internet Explorer

 – please switch to Firefox
 

Do You Want To Know

RIGHT NOW How You

Can Drive Around Using

WATER as FUEL and

Laugh At Rising Gas

Costs, While Reducing

Emissions and Preventing

Global Warming?

100% water cars are still on the drawing board – but I’m excited to show you

how you can start RIGHT NOW to…

 
 
 

  Convert Your Car to

BURN WATER as well

as Gasoline – to Double

Your Mileage!

Did you know that you can convert your car to a water-burning car (Water Hybrid)?

 This is a Do-It-Yourself, affordable and SIMPLE technology.

 Water is supplemental to gasoline – I have doubled fuel economy in my Toyota Corolla 99 shown below (61 MPG).
 

SIMPLE to install/remove: the solution you’ve been looking for!

 Boost performance while preventing smog.

 You’ll discover how to generate free energy in your car.

 Here you will find testimonials of happy customers.

 You will find out how it works and get your questions answered:

  • Won’t it damage my car/my warranty?

>

>

>

 Not only that but according to MythBusters you can not do it by Electrolisis either. There is no such thing as free energy.

 http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html

When you type in Hydrogen From Water, the first 4 pages are these type scams…SHAME on google again!