Archive for the ‘nuclear’ Category

Once Great Britain

01/11/2010

“Imagine conditions in the once Great Britain. Ice laden wind turbines sit idle in the still air; solar panels covered in snow; gas reserves down to 8 days; pensioners burning books to keep warm, and a bankrupt government.

This is happening because politicians have been conned by anti-industrial greens to neglect the UK’s reliable and economical coal and nuclear generators, while wasting time and money on pointless climate crusades.

Australia is treading this treacherous path. The Wong energy plan will consume our savings, uglify our headlands with wind turbines, cover our deserts with solar panels and entangle our countryside with a spider-web of costly and poorly used transmission lines. And still we will need coal and gas to deliver power when “the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine”.

When this global warming madness passes, future generations will remove this derelict solar/wind infrastructure and return to the only reliable and economical electricity options for Australia – coal, gas, hydro and nuclear.”  “Climate Madness and Electricity Realities

A thankful Christmas

12/25/2009

“I’m thankful that the US emits such huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Yes, I know that’s not a politically correct statement. But the simple truth is that carbon dioxide emissions are closely correlated with energy consumption and energy consumption is almost perfectly correlated with wealth. The US is wealthy because Americans are able to consume huge amounts of hydrocarbons. And those hydrocarbons provide nearly 90% of the primary energy consumed in the US. …

I’m thankful that America provides so much of its own energy. Amidst the continuing blather from various political factions on the Right and the Left about the need for “energy independence,” the reality is that the US produces 74% of all the energy it consumes. The US ranks first in the world in the production of electricity from nuclear reactors (ahead of France). It ranks second in coal production (behind China), second in natural gas production (behind Russia), third in oil production (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), and fourth in hydro production (behind China, Canada, and Brazil). All that production – combined with significant imports of oil – allows the US to provide gargantuan quantities of power to its citizens. And it’s that power availability that has made the American economy into a powerhouse. So the next time you hear one of the many energy posers complaining about the evils of foreign oil, remind yourself that the US remains a leader in every category of energy production. …

I’m thankful that I’ve finished all the copy edits on my next book, Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy, and the Real Fuels of the Future. For the past year or so, I’ve been busting my tail to finish the book, which will be published in April by PublicAffairs. I’m proud of the manuscript, which explains why we’ll be using hydrocarbons for decades to come, why renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not “green,” and why natural gas and nuclear are the fuels of the future. Of course, I’m biased. But Power Hungry contains the best explanation of energy and power that I’ve seen.” “A Panoply of Energy-Related Holiday Blessings

A thankful Christmas

12/25/2009

“I’m thankful that the US emits such huge amounts of carbon dioxide. Yes, I know that’s not a politically correct statement. But the simple truth is that carbon dioxide emissions are closely correlated with energy consumption and energy consumption is almost perfectly correlated with wealth. The US is wealthy because Americans are able to consume huge amounts of hydrocarbons. And those hydrocarbons provide nearly 90% of the primary energy consumed in the US. …

I’m thankful that America provides so much of its own energy. Amidst the continuing blather from various political factions on the Right and the Left about the need for “energy independence,” the reality is that the US produces 74% of all the energy it consumes. The US ranks first in the world in the production of electricity from nuclear reactors (ahead of France). It ranks second in coal production (behind China), second in natural gas production (behind Russia), third in oil production (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia), and fourth in hydro production (behind China, Canada, and Brazil). All that production – combined with significant imports of oil – allows the US to provide gargantuan quantities of power to its citizens. And it’s that power availability that has made the American economy into a powerhouse. So the next time you hear one of the many energy posers complaining about the evils of foreign oil, remind yourself that the US remains a leader in every category of energy production. …

I’m thankful that I’ve finished all the copy edits on my next book, Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy, and the Real Fuels of the Future. For the past year or so, I’ve been busting my tail to finish the book, which will be published in April by PublicAffairs. I’m proud of the manuscript, which explains why we’ll be using hydrocarbons for decades to come, why renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not “green,” and why natural gas and nuclear are the fuels of the future. Of course, I’m biased. But Power Hungry contains the best explanation of energy and power that I’ve seen.” “A Panoply of Energy-Related Holiday Blessings

Obama goes nuclear to sweeten Ration and Tax

07/08/2009

“The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America’s nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.

The seal of approval for nuclear power — a cause embraced by Republican senators — came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama’s signature issues.

Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate – his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.

The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies – some of the fiercest critics of Obama’s clean energy agenda – with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America’s technological dominance in the world. …

The endorsement of a nuclear revival – a generation after the last reactor was commissioned – suggests the Obama administration is open to further compromises as it seeks to find a path through the Senate. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill late last month.” “Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass clean energy bill

Obama goes nuclear to sweeten Ration and Tax

07/08/2009

“The Obama administration endorsed a revival of America’s nuclear industry yesterday in an effort to build forward momentum for climate change legislation before the Senate.

The seal of approval for nuclear power — a cause embraced by Republican senators — came on day one of a full-on lobbying effort by the White House for one of Obama’s signature issues.

Obama sent four of his top lieutenants to the Senate – his secretaries of energy, interior, agriculture and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – to try to drum up support for a global warming bill.

The PR effort saw direct appeals to the farming and nuclear lobbies – some of the fiercest critics of Obama’s clean energy agenda – with Steven Chu, the Nobel-winning energy secretary, calling for new nuclear plants to re-establish America’s technological dominance in the world. …

The endorsement of a nuclear revival – a generation after the last reactor was commissioned – suggests the Obama administration is open to further compromises as it seeks to find a path through the Senate. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill late last month.” “Obama makes nuclear compromise to pass clean energy bill

Obama's energy policy

05/01/2009

Politics not science, secrecy not openness

05/01/2009

“WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with sixteen of his Republicans colleagues, sent a letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking about his comment that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” for disposing nuclear waste. Specifically, in the letter, the senators raise several questions about the legal, scientific, and technical justifications for the Obama Administration’s decision to derail the Yucca Mountain project, which has been studied for decades and supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading scientific organizations as a viable storage site for nuclear waste.

“The Obama administration’s approach to Yucca Mountain is nothing short of puzzling,” Senator Inhofe said. “Despite President Obama’s pledge that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, I find it difficult to understand Secretary Chu’s statement that Yucca Mountain is ‘not an option,’ made after only six weeks in office. This comment is of particular interest considering that, as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.”” Senators Seek Explanation of Obama’s Yucca Mountain Decision

Obama’s energy policy

05/01/2009

Politics not science, secrecy not openness

05/01/2009

“WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with sixteen of his Republicans colleagues, sent a letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking about his comment that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” for disposing nuclear waste. Specifically, in the letter, the senators raise several questions about the legal, scientific, and technical justifications for the Obama Administration’s decision to derail the Yucca Mountain project, which has been studied for decades and supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading scientific organizations as a viable storage site for nuclear waste.

“The Obama administration’s approach to Yucca Mountain is nothing short of puzzling,” Senator Inhofe said. “Despite President Obama’s pledge that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, I find it difficult to understand Secretary Chu’s statement that Yucca Mountain is ‘not an option,’ made after only six weeks in office. This comment is of particular interest considering that, as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.”” Senators Seek Explanation of Obama’s Yucca Mountain Decision

Greenies do about face on nuclear

02/23/2009

“Britain must embrace nuclear power if it is to meet its commitments on climate change, four of the country’s leading environmentalists – who spent much of their lives opposing atomic energy – warn today.

The one-time opponents of nuclear power, who include the former head of Greenpeace, have told The Independent that they have now changed their minds over atomic energy because of the urgent need to curb emissions of carbon dioxide.” “Nuclear power? Yes please.