« | »

Nuking Up US Tells Others: Use Windmills

From Russia’s Pravda:

USA Builds Nuclear Power Plant but Asks Other Countries to Put up Windmills

February 19, 2010

The USA decided to resume the development of the nuclear industry. Two new nuclear reactors are planned to be built in the State of Georgia. President Obama stated February 16 in Maryland that the US administration was ready to assign $8.3 billion of credit guarantees for the construction of a nuclear power plant.

Spokespeople for Southern Company, which is going to build the reactors, stated that the governmental funding would cover 70 percent of the cost of all works. The project totals $8.8 billion. The reactors are to be launched in 2016 or 2017.

The constriction of nuclear power plants in the United States was stopped in 1979 after a breakdown at a plant in Pennsylvania. Miscalculations resulted in the partial melting of the active part of the reactor and an emission of radioactive substances. Before the Chernobyl disaster it was the largest nuclear accident in the whole world.

After the nuclear disaster in Pennsylvania, the US considered an opportunity to refuse from the use of nuclear fuel in the energy industry. It was eventually decided not to shut down the plant – the reactors were suspended indefinitely for the time of the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Nowadays, there are 104 reactors and 65 nuclear power stations in 31 states of the country. US nuclear power plants produce 20 percent of all electric power in the United States.

The new plant in Georgia is going to be built at the location where the construction of a similar object was frozen in 1979.

It seems that the US government is seriously concerned about the revival of the nuclear program. According to Carol Browner, assistant to the president on Climate and Energy, the scheduled construction in Georgia will be a first step in a number of other nuclear projects.

It may mean that the construction of new nuclear stations marks the beginning of the reindustrialization of the country, if it is not a cover to a regular affair.

The construction of the nuclear power plant in Georgia will employ about 3,000 people. About 850 will be permanently employed at the station afterwards. Obama said that the new station would save the funds required for purchasing 30 million barrels of oil used as fuel for thermal stations. The project will be equal to the withdrawal of 3,500 cars from US roads, he added.

Hardly had Obama promised $8.3 billion for the nuclear industry when American ecologists showered him with criticism. All of them claimed that the US government was going to spend tax-payers’ money on potentially dangerous objects and pollute the US territory with radioactive waste. Some of them accused Obama of lies and reminded him of his own promises to build the future of pure energy in the country.

Adversaries of the nuclear program say that the project will eat up the funds assigned for the implementation of other state programs, including in the social field. Democrats may eventually lose popularity because of the project. However, opinion polls show that over 50 percent of Americans support the construction of the nuclear power plant.

The project obviously has a political side too. If the US builds a nuclear power plant and calls upon other countries to put up windmills and solar panels, this politics will looks quite bizarre.

Actually, apart from the headline and the last sentence, this article is remarkably gentle. Indeed, it is far more fair than most of our nuclear-phobic mainstream media would be, even admitting that most Americans favor the use of nuclear energy.

But of course the Russians realize that Mr. Obama’s loan offer is not at all serious. Since he has closed the only storage site we have for spent nuclear fuel and he refuses to allow the recycling of it — like they do elsewhere in the industrialized world including Russia.

Still, the Kremlin bosses never let such details get in the way of a good propaganda zinger.

After all, what are (reset) friends for?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, February 19th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Nuking Up US Tells Others: Use Windmills”

  1. proreason says:

    “If the US builds a nuclear power plant and calls upon other countries to put up windmills and solar panels, this politics will looks quite bizarre.”

    Bizarre compared to what?

    Proposing to spend gazillions for health insurance while 85% of the country is satisfied with what they have and the other 15% gets their health care for free?

    Sitting on gazillions in oil that would revitalize the economy from day 1?

    Inventing a “Jobs Saved” metric and claiming a fantasy 2 million jobs saved while 8 million other jobs disappear?

    But Steve has a limit on words for comments, and I have a limit on time.

  2. Dupree says:

    More do as I say, not as I do from daddy Obama.

  3. U NO HOO says:

    Three Mile Island: a bit of flatulence in a fog

    Chernobyl: a tornado in a hurricane

    And 850 employed after the shovel ready nuclear plant is completed? Sounds very high. Like ten times too high.

  4. jobeth says:

    I would love some other’s thought here.

    I’ve always had such mixed feelings about Nuclear power plants.

    I understand they are basically clean…if you don’t consider the waste that needs special disposal. And I understand they are cheaper to run…thus cheaper consumer bills. And I know there are other pros to add to the list.

    My big fear is they are such targets. Especially now, as we have seen how easily terrorist seem to get through our so called defense barriers here in the states. Think of the area involved if these facilities could be breached?

    Just worries me a lot. I hope someone who has a better understanding of this issue can give me some good info to think about. (Not that my opinion will change a thing – lol)
    Maybe it’s just my age…but I still would rather see our own oil and natural gas and even clean coal be used instead. At least we wouldn’t have such a horror if they are attacked.

    • proreason says:

      Good point about nuclear plants being dangerous targets.

      The counter argument would be that we already have over 20, and they won’t be dismantled, so we have the issue anyway.

      Aside from that, I used to be against nuclear myself, but have also switched sides. My view was that they weren’t worth the risk. But as the technology has evolved and the energy situation has evolved, I now believe the greater risk is to not achieve energy independance. And the way to do that is with drilling, natural gas and nuclear, all 3 full-bore on. I would just drop the ninny windmills altogether. Solar may be worth continued research, and some others might be worth investing in as well.

    • jobeth says:

      Thanks again Pro.

      This is one of those things that would happen no matter what I think but I still want to develop an opinion.

      I agree on the windmills. I never understood that whole thing. Too many cons or drawbacks to them to be feasible.

      The solar…ummm…not too sure about that. On a very small individual level its fine…(great for pool heating) but until we can get a storage battery that isn’t the size of a small barn and a way to sell back excess energy to the grid, on a wholesale level that is another thing that has a bit more development before becoming viable. I do support developmental breaks for, those working on the next generation though. Or I should actually say…lets remove governmental penalties from developments. Given a chance the private industry will do the job best.

      I do think we should use what ever is available to develop locally ie hydrothermal, etc …IF we can make it compete with nat gas etc. in cost and sell back excess to the grid.

      We still have so many resources here in America I have never understood why we don’t exploit our own. Here off the coast of Florida in the Gulf we have so many undeveloped oil fields. I say..undeveloped…by the US. Foreign countries are slant drilling into them as we speak.

      It drives me nuts to hear all the people site spill possibilities. When was the last time you heard of a oil platform spillage in the gulf? Instead they become something of an underwater fish draw. Bet you can remember the last time a tanker spilled easy enough though.

      And think of all those stable, high paying jobs!

  5. wardmama4 says:

    I agree Pro – and as for solar – been around since 1939 – if it has not taken off in that time, there has to be a serious problem or some greedy enterprising person would have carried the ball (most especially in the dark days of the Jimmy ‘wear a sweater’ Carter era).

    Everyone talks about energy independence – but then shoots down every option presented – wind and solar are not going to provide for the energy needs of America – unless we want to be on par with the lowest 3rd World countries out there.

    Yes Jobeth – a revitalization of our coal, natural gas and oil industries (and all the other industries that go along with them) would be a real boon to America – and as a certain former Gov brought out to her oil people – isn’t it better to do it in America where there are environmental controls?

    I do not understand why nothing is being done – unless it is intentional to keep America beholden to petty political whims. And desperate to vote for the next guy who promises to fix it.

    • proreason says:

      WM. Yes, coal too. And shale oil while we are on the topic.

      About solar, I’m not a big fan, and you are right that there has been plenty of time already for breakthroughs. The reason I mentioned it is, although it is still not cost competitive, at least it isn’t off by a factor of 10, more like a factor of 2…which means that there is some chance of continuing cost improvments. And since it can be done on a low scale (unlike wind), some people will buy solar panels even though they cost more. Now, if they could be made to last for twice as long (which is conceivable), then they would become competitive for people with a long expense horizon.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      I’ve used this analogy before:

      Think 1492 and Cristoforo Colombo is about to embark on his historic voyage. But there are liberals in Queen Isabella’s court who think that if he just holds on, they will get some more money from the serfs so that they can suddenly and serendipitously invent the steam engine, or even diesel power and therefore make small work of sailing west to the East.

      Technology doesn’t arrive simply by trying to force it. Though necessity is often the mother of invention, it is also a harsh critic. This is why many inventions (we’ve never heard of) never caught on. In the 1800’s scientists thought that the Sun was simply a fire being fueled by some special kind of wood. Someone did the calculations and determined that that was essentially impossible. It took time, much thinking and then some pretty lofty mental gymnastics for Einstein to come up with his monumental equation E=mc squared. And, to fully flesh it out, to realize that fusion was the machine behind the power of stars.

      I am of the opinion that many politicians, who hold degrees in social sciences, are of the belief that technology can be hurried along by forcing it with money and MAKING the people use it. But the numbers don’t lie. If you covered the US top-to-bottom, side-to-side with solar cells, you still could not power the nation to the degree that we do now with coal and oil. Nor could you do it with wind, or tides, and certainly not with biofuels…which…by the way….oil is.

      Perhaps they saw the boom in technology that the Moon Program provided based (falsely) on the notion that so much money was thrown at it that digital technology and materials technology magically appeared. But those technologies were already present, just not to the degree necessary for general consumption. True, the money helped it along.

      But on the face of it, solar cell technology is just barely at an average of 6 to 8 percent efficiency, with the record at 9.6%. Coal is about 30% efficient. The answer is academic.

      Plus the COST of producing solar cells, windmills, tidal machines, etc….is ridiculous. This is where liberals think that taxing the snot out of everyone will fix that and make it “cost effective”. That commune attitude again which has proven over and over to be so…..effective. (not)

      The reason we use coal and oil is because it’s CHEAP…the cheapest fuel around for over 150 years now.

      In time, perhaps we’ll be forced to swap over to other forms. Maybe “Mr Fusion” will become the household power source, but it is unlikely in our time or any time that’s on our childrens’ calendars. For now, carbon-based fuels are it. Nuclear is the other option, though it does have its waste by-products, a problem that (by necessity) is nearly solved.

      So, taking it pragmatically, powering the nation’s home with nukes, the cars with petroleum and so on….it’s an easy problem to solve. But when the lefties get involved and put up the smokescreen of AGW, and other pollutions that are controllable, the average schmuck is left not knowing what to think. They feel guilty that every time they get in their car, they are “killing the planet”. Nope. Not so.

      Electric car? Now there’s a stupendously, monstrous, stupid idea. The amount of energy needed to recharge your car, given the current technology makes it less efficient than just gassing up your car. Plus the range hasn’t gotten much better than 40 miles. Shoot, I drive more than that one way to work. There are no charging stations at work, and if there were, it would cost me ridiculous sums of money just to commute. The greenies have all the answers though: “Take the bus” (there is no bus where I live to/from work), “Live closer” (another bad idea since I live out here and it’s where I can afford to live), “Make them put in charging stations at your work” (yes, and how do you propose I “make them”? Through that magic called “social activisim?” Yes, that will make me all-that-more-promotable at work) and so on.

      I might as well just puff on crack and “fly” myself to work.

      Which is probably another one of their ideas.

      And, let’s say I do make it to work on one charge. That’s without using the AC and taking it real easy on my ($10,000) batteries….but I have a doctor’s appointment to get to during the middle of the day….yeah…that’s gonna work out. Not.

      Let’s face it…even with “lifestyle changes” to appease the need to feed my electric car, the cost will be ridiculous, it’s impractical at best and annoyingly clumsy at worst.

      Greenies also think that everyone lives within walking distance to the market, a la San Fran Haight/Ashbury or downtown Manhattan style. Nope. Better than 60% live in the ‘burbs and out in the boonies. Charging stations at ALL locales would be crap,not to mention insanely expensive to set up.

      There is a reason that the car craze caught on…and I’m not saying just because the tire and petroleum companies pulled some fast ones on the trolley and rail people….which happened…but the car would’ve caught on regardless. Freedom, cost and practicality. You can get in your car and go. No timetable, no waiting for the trolley, no having to sit next to some slob with a transmittable illness, and PRIVACY. Did you know that 90% of the people who take the trolley in San Fran in the summertime are TOURISTS and there are only three lines.

      Now, NYC and other places make use of the underground,….but at certain locales and times, they are just havens for crime. I’ll take my chances of being car-jacked vs mugged in the subway any day.

      Nope. Money will not magically make technology appear. Only time and ingenuity of the human mind can make that happen. Yes, and money too. But all three are necessary to get it to come about. I will say though, that not a whole lot of money went into Einstein’s theory. He simply plugged away at it while working at the Swiss Patent Office. The money to put his theory to use came later in the Manhattan Project and then into nuclear power plants.

      Liberals….always using someone else’s money to make the future happen.

      Most of the alternative technologies have been explored since the 1930’s, including solar. It’s not ready yet. It won’t be ready tomorrow..or the next day, or next year or next decade. Eureka moments don’t happen as the result of money only. And simply increasing the money supply to research will not give us breakthroughs.

    • wardmama4 says:

      Rusty – but, but correct me if I am dumb blind stupid in my conclusion here – ‘This is where liberals think that taxing the snot out of everyone will fix that and make it “cost effective”’- how is increasing the tax burden (either to a business/corporation/product and/or the taxpayer) make a damn thing cost effective? The prices rise even more – unless all those ages ago of business courses, accounting and economics (not to mention 43 years of doing household budgets) are missing some point.

      And I think money is not the variable that evens the playing field – We have made it fine thank you very well on an impossilbly small amount of ‘wealth’ in the scheme of things in America – and even with a small amount of education. What we do have is what makes America the beacon to the World – the work ethic to keep going, to do with what we have, to adapt, adjust and overcome and to persevere – the last being the one attribute the damn lie-brals are attempting to eradicate from every American citizen.

      -‘Liberals….always using someone else’s money to make the future happen. ‘- Worse lie-brals are always using other people’s money to make as many people not them – beholden and enslaved to them, forever.

    • proreason says:

      The great unspoken objectives of the green movement is to limit and control people’s mobility.

      When people can just jump in a car and go literally anywhere for a price they can easily afford, they aren’t as susceptable to being herded into major cities where they are entirely dependent on statist services.

      That’s what public transportation is all about. That’s what electric cars are all about. Notice that the states with wide open spaces are by necessity dependent on cars, and hence vote anti-statist.

      In addition, “skyrocketing” the price of energy takes disposable income away from people, who seen to enjoy the freedom it brings. Cheap energy is a very bad thing from a statist perspective. Obamy made a rare unforced error when blurted that he intends to bankrupt the coal industry.

      Everything that restricts the statists ability to control the population must be eliminated….mobility, disposable income, supportive families, independent small businesses, churches, guns, the Constitution, the internet, Talk Radio. You can go right down the list and predict the statist position before you even know what it is.

      And still, millions of brain-dead people support them. It is truely stunning.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Thanks wm4 and Pro for summarizing my inferred points.

      Yes, it’s ridiculous. But like Pro said, there are duped masses everywhere who somehow think it’s all achievable. And wm4, that was point exactly that it’s NOT cost effective but that somehow, in the deep, dark recesses of a liberal mind’s gray matter, where logic and common sense never go, there is a “magic” gene.

      Have you ever seen the cartoon of the two professors at the blackboard and one is trying to express the formula for how his theory works and on the left are mathematical calculations, and on the right there are same. In the middle it says “and then a miracle happens”. The one prof says to the other, “I think you need to explain this part further” or something to that effect. It’s hilarious and explains everything from AGW to how electric cars will save the planet.

      Another analogy is more recent….where the intellectuals were re-discovering The Sphinx and were going to try to carve a miniature replica head in limestone, using bronze tools. In a few short blows, the bronze tools dulled and the mason reverted to steel, which was unavailable 3500 years ago. Yet, in another NOVA presentation, at Machu Pichu, much of the stonework is granite, about twice as hard as limestone, and one of the researchers there simply took up another piece of granite and demonstrated how they most likely carved the stone, using other stones. I was rather amused that the elite intellectuals automatically assumed the Egyptians used bronze tools on the limestone, based solely on pictures carved into walls. Even steel tools dulled in a short period of time in their modern-day attempt.

      I may be reaching there, but, 3500 years ago, they didn’t have a lot of Harvard trained intellectuals to tell them to use the bronze tools. But, it has been my experience that people will quickly discover the easiest path to get something done and would most likely have hacked away at the Egyptian limestone with….other limestone until they got to the level where the finer work had to be done.

      My point being something along the lines of….”NASA spent millions of dollars to come up with a pen that would write in zero-gravity. The Russians, when faced with the same dilemma, used a pencil”.

      Occam’s Razor.

      No matter how much money you dump into technology…it will not substantially alter the fundamental nature of that technology, nor make it do something it cannot. And pro is right, politicians use this money approach to siphon off funds that could be put to better use.

  6. canary says:

    gentle as Obama plans to loan Russia money to lead & run the space program. A warhead on a space ship would be perfect for Russia’s padlocked nuclear weapons.

    ohhh. So Obama’s bribe to Nevada for housing projects will be built on the nuclear waste lands. New Orleans will be furious.

  7. Enthalpy says:

    Didn’t Obama rescind the Yucca Mountain Development Act on the day he endorsed nuclear energy? Forked tongue!

  8. canary says:

    off subject, but Interesting Chicago paper perspective on Obama. an older article.


    article didn’t point out, The Kenya grandmother that keeps claiming to be Obama’s grandmother, was actually a different wife of Obama Sr.’s father. Obama Sr.’s mother ran away several times, finally escaping the raping & beating from Obama Sr.’s father. Obama Sr. was bitter of his mother leaving. I suppose Obama doesn’t want to hurt his step-grandmother’s feelings. He calls her Granny.

  9. Jim22 says:

    This is not about providing energy. It is not about embracing nuclear power. It is not about prezero turning his back on his leftist base. It is about spending money in huge amounts.

    Think about the most expensive ideas which have come along in the United States. Every one, Health care, taxing energy use, and now nuclear energy, have been promoted by this administration.

    The goal is not to improve the lives of Americans. It is to spend us into oblivion, in order to make the country default so it can be rebuilt in a new image. It is an adaptation of the Cloward/Piven strategy.

    From their website, http://cloward-piven.com/:

    Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis.
    The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the “crisis strategy” or the the “flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy,” the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants – more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism.
    The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975.
    Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN.
    Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

  10. bill says:

    So we going to put the spent nuclear waste in Chicago? I hear they say they need money, so maybe a $1 a year per ton storage fee will help?

    I don’t think rusting oil barrels are the right way to store nuclear waste. The whole nuke thing is going nowhere. It’s just jive talk to get the crap and tax passed.

    Ever seen a President lie straight up?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »