Tuesday, March 29, 2011
So many of my colleagues were surprised to learn about my switch on nuclear energy. They called it an "over reaction to Fukushima" and said there was no reason for alarm. But some elementary research was all it took for me to have a change of heart. I learned a few things: Nuclear energy is as much as 6 times more expensive than oil, coal or natural gas. It is as highly subsidized as solar, wind, ethanol and other forms of alternative energy. Spent nuclear fuel can never be made inert. Any catastrophic event than causes its exposure is an unstoppable disaster. Nothing can live there for a long time. So given the cost and potential for catastrophe my view has evolved. We must use coal and gas for electricity, and oil for all the things it is used for now. Alternatives must be competitive in the market. When they are they will sell, create jobs and push our country forward. Eventually they may replace coal, gas and oil. We'll see. But it's not fair to penalize Americans until alternatives have proved themselves. Turn our fossil fuel energy firms into the giant job creators and money-makers they are. Stop the war on fossil fuel.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Given the intransigence of the Global Warming/Climate Change crowd I never thought I would change my mind about nuclear power. However, given the disaster in Japan and the basic problem of disposing of spent fuel rods I have had a change of heart. To quote a guy in my office "you are a fossil (fuel) man;" And I guess it is true. As you may or may not know no matter what type of fuel you use the basic principle behind generating power on a large scale is an updated version of Robert Fulton's steam engine. Large furnaces heat water to boiling, which is then pushed through turbines to turn generators that produce electricity. Coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear power are the prime generators of electric in America and account for over 90-percent of our power needs. It is no secret that we have huge coal and natural gas reserves and with some rational thinking America could solve its power needs for electricity for several hundred years. It would also give us a chance to develop alternatives that are up to the task. What has caused my change of heart is the issue of spent nuclear fuel. It is clear that these rods are dangerous and really cannot be disposed of in a non-lethal way, and we have more nuclear plants than any country in the world. If they ever become exposed the radiation will kill. This is the lesson of the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. The only by-product of coal is ash, which can be recycled. Coal and natural gas are starting to look pretty good to me.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Senator Robert Menendez- Democrat NJ - I listened to you on the John Gambling radio show today. With all due deference to your point of view: It epitomizes the liberal view of oil (in the form of energy) and government spending that is destroying the country. You ramble on in an incoherent narrative about alternative energy, which you know will not replace oil for at least 50 years, and you continue to justify reckless spending and refuse to examine any serious way of cutting the cost of government. People like me, who are not famous or celebrated, have been writing for years on the topics of energy and government spending. What is the Democratic fixation on reducing "America's addiction" on oil? Oil is one of the most vital compounds in a modern mechanized society. Oil, next to CO2, which is another vital compound to our existence, is something without which life could not exist. Yet Democrats in the Congress seem focused on eliminating both. And what is it about spending that you and your colleagues do not get. In my view cutting $61B, which is the Republican proposal, is not enough. How about the $105 billion tucked in for ObamaCare beneath the radar. That alone almost triples the cuts being proposed and the Democrats are still stuck at being unable to find more $10B to cut. America is now at the time where the rubber hits the road. You and your colleagues better get it together. We must use oil and we must cut spending. It cannot be said more simply. That's what you get paid for. Do your job. Get America moving.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Michael Goodwin of the The New York Post may be asking the most important question of all: Why was President Obama so quick to condemn and desert Hosni Mubarak and so slow to demand similar action on Libya’s Gadhafi and Iran's Ahmadinejad. Obama sided with the protestors quickly when they were opposed to a leader than was an ally and yet dithered and shrank when it came to support the protestors in Libya and Iran, whose dictatorial rulers killed protestors without hesitation or remorse. Our President is one of those people who "bites the hand that feeds him" with relish. He admires our enemies like Iran, Libya, Venuzeula and Cuba. He despises our friends like England, France, and Israel, just to mention a few. Obama has never passed up an opportunity to insult them. One of the first things he did when he became President was return the bust of Winston Churchill to England. At a European economic summit he chose working out in his hotel over an invitation to have dinner with the President of France. Not to mention his abysmal treatment of Benjamin Netanyahu or the Dali Lama. The answer is simple: Obama loves our enemies more than our friends.