Category Archives: vampires

Nuclear Power Plants Explode – Gas Prices Explode

Posted on by
Reply

I may have crafted the perfect google whore headline. So which do you think is more important? The nukes or the pocketbook? I vote for the nukes. But which source to cite? God what a beautiful day. Actually it is cold and rainy here but I just meant it at a philosophical level. First the ground rules: 1. None of these nukes will create a China syndrome, 2. They will be messy to clean up but produce no widespread radiation meaning spreading any further than 100 miles, 3. They will not kill off the nuclear power movement worldwide.

First the bad news:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0314/Second-explosion-at-nuclear-power-plant-in-Japan

Second explosion at nuclear power plant in Japan

Monday’s blast destroyed the containment building but the reactor is still intact. Japanese officials also said cooling systems have failed at a third reactor

By Jenna Fisher, Staff writer / March 14, 2011

A new explosion hit Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on Monday, two days after an explosion at a different reactor housing unit at the power plant. Japanese officials said cooling systems have also failed at a third reactor as a result of Friday’s earthquake and tsunami that knocked out electricity to much of the region

Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. said 11 people were injured in the blast, which authorities said was probably a hydrogen explosion causing the roof and walls of the building to blow away, reported Japan Today.

Today’s explosion has increased concern about a possible release of radiation, such as the fallout from Chernobyl that devastated Ukraine in 1986. However, a number of American and European scientists, as well as Japan’s nuclear safety agency, have downplayed that risk.

IN PICTURES: Japan’s 8.9 earthquake

Despite Saturday’s explosion at reactor No. 1 and Monday’s blast at reactor No. 3, Japan’s nuclear safety agency has said there is “absolutely no possibility of a Chernobyl” style accident at the Fukushima I plant, according to the national strategy minister, reports The Daily Telegraph. While the explosions blew the roof off each of the reactor containment buildings, officials said the reactors themselves remained intact.

“Everything I’ve seen says that the containment structure is operating as it’s designed to operate. It’s keeping the radiation in and it’s holding everything in, which is the good news,” Murray Jennex, of San Diego State University, told the Telegraph.

“This is nothing like a Chernobyl,” he added. “At Chernobyl you had no containment structure – when it blew, it blew everything straight out into the atmosphere.”

:}

For a better discussion of why I mandated guidelines, please see the below related article. The bottom line is they will probably have to pump sea water into at least three reactors, making them pretty much a total economic loss. It will take at least a month for them too cool down. But they were 40 years old and this is what you get when you put your hand in the nuclear cookie jar.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2011/0313/Japan-s-nuclear-crisis-and-Chernobyl-key-differences

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

We Should Attack Gaddafi Now – He is screwing with the whole world

Posted on by
Reply

I do not normally advise the US to attack third world countries. Especially over oil. But in this case the mad man is attacking his own people. The chaos is shutting down the oil fields in Libya and rippling through the oil world. He is threatening to set the oil fields on fire. He ordered naval vessels to bombard Tripoli. Where is the 5th Fleet when you need them.

http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2011/02/u-s-gas-prices-spike-6-cents-overnight.html

U.S., Chicago gas prices spike 6 cents overnight

By CNN
Posted today at 10:37 a.m.

A customer purchases gasoline at a Chicago Shell station on Feb. 7, 2011. (Scott Olson/Getty Images) 

U.S. gas prices jumped 6 cents overnight, as the recent spike in oil prices begins to hit filling stations across America. That marks the third day in a row that prices have risen, and brings the national average to the highest level since October 2008.

The national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose 5.9 cents to $3.287, motorist group AAA said Friday. Gasoline also jumped 6 cents overnight in Chicago, where prices averaged $3.497.

So far this week, gas prices have increased nearly 12 cents a gallon. And analysts expect prices to continue higher in the next few days following a sharp rise in the price of crude oil.

Gas prices were highest in Hawaii, where drivers paid $3.757 a gallon, on average. Wyoming had the lowest gas prices at roughly, $3.014 a gallon.

The jump in pump prices follows a surge in prices for crude oil, the main ingredient in gasoline. Oil prices were holding near $98 a barrel early Friday morning, one day after prices hit a high of $103 a barrel — the highest since October 2008.

Economists warn that an energy price shock could hurt the economic recovery in the United States. In general, every $1 increase in the price of oil costs consumers $1 billion over the course of a year.

That’s concerning because consumer spending makes up the bulk of U.S. gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic growth.

Oil prices have been driven higher by political unrest in North Africa and the Middle East, where much of the world’s oil comes from. Despite the surge in prices this week, the amount of oil that has been taken off the world market has been relatively minimal.

Read more about the topics in this post: ,

:}

More next week.

:}

Christiane Amanpour Chats With A General – Candidly or not

Posted on by
Reply

This speaks for itself, but is this leftist?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/gen-hugh-shelton-bush-administration-offic

October 25, 2010 03:00 AM

Gen. Hugh Shelton: Bush Administration Officials Pushed to Go to War With Iraq ‘Almost to the Point of Insubordination’

This Week’s Christiane Amanpour talked to former Joint Chief Chair Gen. Hugh Shelton about the rush to invade Iraq by members of the Bush administration which he described as “almost to the point of insubordination.” Color any of us that were paying attention at the time not surprised by this latest revelation. The PNAC crowd surrounding him in the White House were pushing to invade Iraq long before Bush was selected by our Supreme Court to be president or becoming members of his Cabinet.

AMANPOUR: Let’s go back to when you were Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and even slightly afterwards, when President Bush decided to go to war in Iraq. You talk about it was based on faulty intelligence and indeed on lies and deceit, but you also say something about insubordination. You say, for instance, during meetings, “some people were kept on after Bush had tendered his opinion and issued an instruction based on that opinion. Yet certain strong-willed individuals seemed to disregard him and forge ahead with their own agendas, almost to the point of insubordination.” That’s a very strong indictment.

SHELTON: Well, there was a very strong push in those days for us to go into Iraq, and there was absolutely no intelligence, zero, that pointed toward — pointed toward the Iraqis. It was all Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden. And yet there was an element there that was — that was pushing to go into Iraq at the same time.

AMANPOUR: But what do you mean by insubordination?

SHELTON: The fact that the president says himself, we’re not going to do that right now, let’s focus on Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Yet below the surface, we still had the sentiment that said, let’s keep planning for Iraq just in case we can convince him that we can go.

AMANPOUR: And you think they could have convinced him?

SHELTON: Not at that time. I think that, as President Bush told me at Camp David, you know, I just don’t see it. You know, we may go get Saddam and take him out, but it will be at a time and place of our choosing. It won’t be as a part of the Afghanistan operation. He got it from day one. When he was briefed by the CIA…

AMANPOUR: So you’re saying he was pushed into it?

SHELTON: I think eventually that that same drumbeat continued, and Afghanistan, remember, was going very, very well. The drumbeat back here in Washington was still pushing, coming out of the Pentagon, let’s go to Iraq, let’s get — take him out. And he finally said, let’s go. We walked out on the limb before we could build a coalition of the — either the United Nations or NATO, one of the two.

AMANPOUR: You’re very — you have some harsh words about then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Is he part of the group that you are targeting here?

SHELTON: Well, I personally like Secretary Rumsfeld, but he was part of the group, he and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, that continued to push to go into Iraq. And I think that’s been documented on a number of occasions.

And making me wonder how much this interview was edited, I transcribed the portion of the video above. It’s not included in ABC’s transcript. The portion below however, is in ABC’s transcript but missing from the video.

AMANPOUR: But you also say that in terms of dealing with defense secretaries that Secretary Rumsfeld was more in the (INAUDIBLE) mold, which you said was, you know, based more on sort of heavy pushing and on those kinds of relationships.

SHELTON: And those were my observations. I’ve had the opportunity to work for a number of secretaries of defense while I was in Pentagon. And, for example, Secretary Bill Cohen, great team-builders, tremendous leader, (INAUDIBLE), made you want to do things because they were the right things to do and because we all pulled together to get it done.

But the leadership that Secretary Rumsfeld brought was totally different.

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

Morris and Gann On Energy Policy – Obama bad McCain good

Posted on by
Reply

What a difference the evaporation of 5 $$$ gasoline and 2 years makes. Obama is President and one of the greenest Presidents we have ever had. McCain is not. Gasoline, though rising, is at 3.25 $$$ a gallon. Electric cars have just rolled out of two car companies, one of which Obama saved through a bailout. The electrics are popular and have waiting lists. The new normal for cars is 40 miles to the gallon. Of course I have the advantage of hindsight but I was pointing out that Obama had the superior energy policy back then so I can crow alittle.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccain_scores_with_offshore_dr.html

June 19, 2008

McCain Scores With Offshore Drilling Proposal

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

John McCain has drawn first blood in the political debate following Barack Obama’s victory in the primaries. His call yesterday for offshore oil drilling — and Bush’s decision to press the issue in Congress – puts the Democrats in the position of advocating the wear-your-sweater policies that made Jimmy Carter unpopular.

With gas prices nearing $5, all of the previous shibboleths need to be discarded. Where once voters in swing states like Florida opposed offshore drilling, the high gas prices are prompting them to reconsider. McCain’s argument that even hurricane Katrina did not cause any oil spills from the offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico certainly will go far to allay the fears of the average voter.

For decades, Americans have dragged their feet when it comes to switching their cars, leaving their SUVs at home, and backing alternative energy development and new oil drilling. But the recent shock of a massive surge in oil and gasoline prices has awakened the nation from its complaisance. The soaring prices are the equivalent of Pearl Harbor in jolting us out of our trance when it comes to energy.

Suddenly, everything is on the table. Offshore drilling, Alaska drilling, nuclear power, wind, solar, flex-fuel cars, plug-in cars are all increasingly attractive options and John McCain seems alive to the need to go there while Obama is strangely passive. During the Democratic primary, he opposed a gas tax holiday and continues to be against offshore and Alaska drilling and squishy on nuclear power. That leaves turning down your thermostat and walking to work as the Democratic policies.

McCain has also been ratcheting up his attacks on oil speculators. With the total value of trades in oil futures soaring from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion today, it is increasingly clear that it is not the supply and demand for oil which is, alone, driving up the price, but it is the supply and demand for oil futures which is stoking the upward movement.

The Saudis have made a fatal mistake in not forcing down the price of oil. We could have gone for decades as their hostage, letting their control over our oil supplies choke us while enriching them. But they got greedy and let the price skyrocket.

:}

Just so we are clear here, the Greedy Saudi’s had nothing to do with the gasoline prices, speculators and greedy refinery owners did. But then they are these guys friends so they couldn’t possibly see that. More tomorrow.

:}

John Stossel And Energy Policy – He fosters the misuse of the word independence

Posted on by
1

All right wing conservatives have to pick there own facts or their own definitions to win arguments. Winning on the merits is never an issue. Family values of course has nothing to do with modern families. It is only about modern christian families. In this Stossel piece, independence is replaced by dependence on the cheapest source. What he side steps is the idea that a country with a balanced portfolio of wind, solar, geothermal, micro hydro, bio and natural gas energy sources is both its own producer, so it is independent from foriegn manipulation and independent in that it is not overly depended on one source of energy, thus insulated from natural interruptions.

August 20, 2008

The Idiocy of Energy Independence

By John Stossel

It’s amazing how ideas with no merit become popular merely because they sound good.

Most every politician and pundit says “energy independence” is a great idea. Presidents have promised it for 35 years. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were self-sufficient, protected from high prices, supply disruptions and political machinations?

The hitch is that even if the United States were energy independent, it would be protected from none of those things. To think otherwise is to misunderstand basic economics and the global marketplace.

To be for “energy independence” is to be against trade. But trade makes us as safe. Crop destruction from this summer’s floods in the Midwest should remind us of the folly of depending only on ourselves. Achieving “energy independence” would expose us to unnecessary risks — such as storms that knock out oil refineries or droughts that create corn — and ethanol — shortages.

Trade also saves us money. “We import energy for a reason,” says the Cato Institute’s energy expert, Jerry Taylor, “It’s cheaper than producing it here at home. A governmental war on energy imports will, by definition, raise energy prices”.

Anyway, a “domestic energy only” policy (call it “Drain America First”?) is a fantasy. America’s demand for oil is too great for us to supply ourselves. Electricity we could provide. Not with windmills and solar panels — they are not yet close to providing enough — but coal and nuclear power could produce America’s electricity.

But cars need oil. We don’t have nearly enough.

That doesn’t keep the presidential candidates from preying on the public’s economic ignorance.

“I have set before the American people an energy plan, the Lexington Project — named for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before,” John McCain said. “This nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025”.

Barack Obama, promising to “set America on path to energy independence,” is upset that we send millions to other countries. “They get our money because we need their oil”

:}

Wonder who is picking up his tab. More tomorrow.

:}

Ann Coulter And Energy Policy – Ann supports just about everything that is wrong with this country’s energy policy

Posted on by
Reply

Poor Ann. She has ranted a raved for so long that she, like Sarah Palin, has become a parody of herself. She once said that , “when the democrats talk about new forms of energy they don’t actually create any new form of energys, they talk about old forms of enenrgy like solar power, wind power and barley power”. Did she miss physics in college or what?

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_friendly.cgi?article=262

THIS IS NOT A DRILL
by Ann Coulter
July 16, 2008

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, “the worst speaker in the history of Congress,” explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: “We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect.”

Yes, that would explain why the price of oral sex, cigars and Hustler magazine skyrocketed during the Clinton years. Also, I note that Speaker Pelosi is a hotelier … and the price of a hotel room in New York is $1,000 a night! I think she might be onto something.

Is that why a barrel of oil costs mere pennies in all those other countries in the world that are not run by “oilmen”? Wait — it doesn’t cost pennies to them? That’s weird.

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: “President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay’s oil-company interests.” The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I’m not even “an oilman.”

But yes — good point: What a disaster having people in government who haven’t spent their entire lives in politics! That explains everything. A government official with relevant experience or knowledge about an issue is obviously a crisis of gargantuan proportions.

This must be why the Democrats are nominating B. Hussein Obama, who finished middle school three days ago and has less experience than a person one might choose at random from the audience of “American Idol.”

Announcing the Democrats’ bold new “plan” on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “is one alternative.” That’s not an energy plan. It’s using what we already have — much like “conservation,” which is also part of the Democrats’ plan.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It’s as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: “Just eat a little less every day.” Great! We’ll die a little more slowly. That’s not what we call a “plan.” We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

:}

She claims to be a comedian. But she declared that an attempt to toss a pie in her face, an age old comedic twist was attempted assault. Soupy Sales where are you? More tomorrow.

:}

Walter Williams And Energy Policy – Just putting their words up so you can see what we are up against

Posted on by
Reply

I should say first that I detest this man and the “university” that he claims to teach at if he is still there. George Mason University is just a front group for corporate and christian evil. The real malfeasance is that they dress it up as “higher education” and “graduate learning programs”.

This is a rich black man who drives a $70,000 car and shills for oil, gas and coal.

Oh, and I have been neglecting to mention where I get my list of the 30 top conservative columnists from:

http://rightwingnews.com/2009/09/the-30-best-conservative-columnists-for-2009-version-3-0/?p=1207?comments=show

Here is Walter in all his ignorance the day before Christmas.
Walter E. Williams

Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming.” U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus.” In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”

The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

George Will And Our Energy Future – It’s boatloads of coal

Posted on by
Reply

Can you imagine a world where not only are there oil and natural gas supertankers circling the globe but coal supertankers too? George Will can. Wonder who pays this guys paycheck?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7362049.html

King coal’s staying power now and into the future

By GEORGE F. WILL
Washington Post

Jan. 1, 2011, 4:03PM

Cowlitz County in Washington state is across the Columbia River from Portland, Ore., which promotes mass transit and urban density and is a green reproach to the rest of us. Recently, Cowlitz did something that might make Portland wonder whether shrinking its carbon footprint matters. Cowlitz approved construction of a coal export terminal from which millions of tons of U.S. coal could be shipped to Asia annually.

Both Oregon and Washington are curtailing the coal-fired generation of electricity, but the future looks to greens as black as coal. The future looks a lot like the past.

Historian William Rosen (The Most Powerful Idea in the World, about the invention of the steam engine) says coal was Europe’s answer to the 12th-century “wood crisis” when Christians leveled much forestation in order to destroy sanctuaries for pagan worship, and to open farmland. Population increase meant more wooden carts, houses and ships, so wood became an expensive way to heat dwellings or cook. By 1230, England had felled so many trees it was importing most of its timber and was turning to coal.

“It was not until the 1600s,” Rosen writes, “that English miners found their way down to the level of the water table and started needing a means to get at the coal below it.” In time, steam engines were invented to pump out water and lift out coal. The engines were fired by coal.

Today, about half of America’s and the world’s electricity is generated by coal, the substance which, since it fueled the Industrial Revolution, has been a crucial source of energy. Over the last eight years, it has been the world’s fastest-growing fuel. The New York Times recently reported (“Booming China Is Buying Up World’s Coal,” Nov. 22) about China’s ravenous appetite for coal, which is one reason coal’s price has doubled in five years

:}

More tomorrow.

:}

More Top Stories From The Energy World From 2010

Posted on by
Reply

This one gets it pretty much right I think. I think the BP oil spew was maybe the story of the Decade. I also think that the third world led by China as an ever thirstier consumer of liquid carbon fuels has been over played. But first I found them at Peak Oil, that ever depressing, in a rogue sort of way, website. So have a Happy New Year folks:

http://peakoil.com/generalideas/robert-rapier-top-10-energy-related-stories-of-2010/

But it is a repost from this Blog so Happy New Year to you too.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/12/28/my-top-10-energy-related-stories-of-2010/

My Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2010

Posted by Robert Rapier on Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Here are my choices for the Top 10 energy related stories of 2010. I can’t remember having such a difficult time squeezing this list down to 10 stories, because there were many important energy stories for 2010. It was hard to cut some of them from the Top 10; so hard that I almost did a Top 15. But I made some difficult choices, and offer my views on the 10 most important energy stories of 2010. Previously I listed a link to Platt’s survey of the Top 10 oil stories of 2010, but my list covers more than just oil.

Reviewing my list of Top 10 Energy Related Stories of 2009, I see that I made three predictions. Those predictions were:

  • China’s moves are going to continue to make waves
  • There will be more delays (and excuses) from those attempting to produce fuel from algae and cellulose
  • There will be little relief from oil prices.

Given that total energy demand from China surpassed that of the U.S. in 2010 (five years earlier than expected), the EPA twice rolled back cellulosic ethanol mandates (and there are still no functioning commercial plants), and we are closing the year with oil above $90 per barrel, I would say I nailed all of those.

For this year’s list, don’t get too hung up on the relative rankings. They are mostly subjective, but I think we would have fairly broad agreement on the top story.

1. Deepwater Horizon Accident

On April 20, 2010 the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 men working on the rig and injuring 17 others. Because of the depth of the rig, there was no easy way to cap it and it gushed oil until it was finally capped three months later on July 15th. In the interim, the leak released almost 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. In fact, not only was this my top energy story of the year, according to a poll of AP writers and editors it was the top news story period.

2. The Deepwater Horizon Fallout

While the accident itself was the biggest story, there was much fallout from the incident that will continue to be felt for years. Just three weeks before the incident, President Obama had proposed to open up vast new areas off the Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the north coast of Alaska. Governor Schwarzeneggar was pushing for offshore oil drilling near Santa Barbara County. There was a great deal of momentum that promised to greatly expand the areas available for offshore production. In the wake of the disaster, the debate shifted sharply. President Obama canceled a planned August offshore drilling lease sale in the Western Gulf and off the coast of Virginia, citing that his “eyes had been opened” to the risks of offshore drilling. The administration also put a temporary deepwater drilling ban in place until additional safety reviews could take place. Governor Schwarzeneggar dropped his plans, citing the spill as evidence that offshore drilling still poses too great a risk.

But there were far-reaching impacts in other areas. BP began to sell off assets, raising $10 billion to pay claims of those impacted by the spill. BP CEO Tony Hayward — after a series of gaffes — stepped down from the helm of BP. Around the area affected by the spill, people lost jobs, particularly in the fishing and tourism industries. The long-term environmental impact remains uncertain, with some groups claiming the area has recovered, and others stating that it will be years before the full environmental impact can be determined.

3. China Becomes World’s Top Energy Consumer

For more than a century, the United States has been the world’s top consumer of energy. In 2010, China surpassed the U.S. in total energy consumption. If not for the Deepwater Horizon accident, this would have easily been my #1 story. As I said last year, I believe that China will be the single-biggest driver of oil prices over at least the next 5-10 years.

:}

Personally I do not see Matt Simmons’ death as a huge energy story, but this guy knew him so I can understand the inclusion. More next week.

:}

Merry Christmas Everyone – Hoping for a much greener world next year

Posted on by
Reply

http://www.christmaslightsetc.com/led-christmas-lights.htm

LED Christmas lights are popular holiday lights due to their energy saving features and long bulb life. LEDs burn bright, and you will reduce your costs when choosing Christmas lights! When choosing LED bulbs, the size options range from the popular outdoor light sizes of C7 and C9 to the minis, small round G12 bulbs, and C6 teardrops. LED Christmas lights are available as net lights for bushes, icicle strands to hang from roof tops, and rope lighting and garland. Learn more by reading our detailed LED Christmas Lights Guide, which also shows actual bulb sizes.

:}