The State of Nuclear Power and Reactors. US Stuck in Past, Rest of World Moves Ahead

Once again the Luddite "progressives" are keeping America from being first at something. That would be nuclear energy plants. Back in the mid 1970's we were scheduled to build 100 nuclear rectors in 20 years. Well, there were a couple accidents at a couple plants, Jane Fonda's "The China Syndrome" propaganda movie against nuclear energy development, and that's where we stopped. I bought into the whole anti nuke power thing back then. Unlike Leftists/Progressives/Socialist/Democrats, I don't stay stuck in the past, I change as things evolve, as do Conservatives. Those guys, Leftists, by the way, only believe in evolution when they want to bash uninformed Christians; those Christians that stay stuck in the past and don't change like "progressives" falsely claim to do.

They're against fracking, which does not pollute ground water as they claim, they just want to stop energy production, hurting the poor the most, the people they claim they care the most about. Federal Government finally comes out with study showing fracking does not contaminate ground water here. How fracking works here. Note that the most effective KwH per hour is nuclear production, after coal, which Obama is shutting down. All the other "green energy" stuff like wind and solar that the neo-Luddites proclaim are best, are far and anyway the most expensive. Drilling new oil wells, especially on Alaska's North Shore, they were\are against, claiming the pollution and potential for accidents for causing

spills and such were too great. The kind of drilling technology and problems they are talking about was dated when I worked on rigs in the 1970's. Again they just want to stop energy production. Same with the Keystone Pipeline. There are no emissions, no pollution issues, no safety issues. They just want to stop energy production. Just take a look too at Obama and his various energy and pollution departments just illegally closing down production; offshore and on Federal land. Of course there's been a huge boost in energy production from gas and oil, but it's all on private land; Obama of course takes credit for the increased production.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world has moved ahead with nuclear reactors with great success and close to zero problems. Here's some examples of what's being done in the rest of the world. Westinghouse has a reactor, the AP-1000, and has built six of them in China; they are online. (The Chinese of course reverse engineered them and build their own now.)

Another reactor is the Areva 1,700 megawatt European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) which is a new (oh no! cry the Democrats, something new!) design, also coming online in China.

The Russians are building reactors in India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Turkey, Belarus and Iran. We could be building them there, making gazillions of dollars, employing Americans, saving the environment and stopping the bleeding the of poor of money they don't have to spend on energy.

There's even little reactors, Small Modular Reactors (SMR) that can be manufactured in plants and put together on site. It's 125 megawatts, about the size of a back porch; each one could provide energy to about 70,000 people. I'm reminded of a sci-fi series where even watches were nuclear powered. By the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to even recognize SMR's.

Nuclear waste...that canard. Uranium was used in the 1950's for awhile beyond. It's not needed, modern reactors mostly use thorium, which produces about one tenth of the waste, and is less dangerous, than uranium waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission refuses to recognize thorium just like they refuse to recognize SMR's. We have the multi $billion Yucca Mountain here in Nevada, which has way more capacity than necessary to safely store the thorium waste. The issue here is more the transportation. Government knuckleheads want it brought though Clark County, the most densely populated part of Nevada, by truck mostly and some by rail. Geeeze, here's a novel idea, build a road or rail to Yucca Mountain not passing though heavily populated areas. Of course the Nuclear bureaucrats have lame excuses why they can't, but they're knuckleheads, and it's another red herring to block the use of nuclear power.  

There's a breeder reactor called an Integral Fast Reactor. It doesn't have much waste, it mostly generates reusable fuel. There was one that had been running in Idaho for about thirty years until Bill Clinton shut it down. Russia has one, been building it and selling since the 1980's all over the world, Heard of any accident's?

Even Leftist Bill Gates recognizes the safe use of nuclear energy. There's a kind of design call Traveling Wave that runs on depleted uranium. Hey, we can use traditional waste and create energy. How 'bout that? Well, he and his group tried getting those started up here, and of course the Nuclear Energy Commission said no. The Chinese are building them now. They could be being built here, creating jobs and providing clean low cost energy, but noooooo.

Another canard is terrorists can get the uranium waste and make bombs. There are more efficient and cheaper ways to make nuclear bombs. That's how they did stuff a couple decades ago.

Using the right processing, waste is not a problem, and can be safely stored in small rooms really. But we've built Yucca Mountain so we may as well use it. All we need is a small room in it.

One of the things totalitarian governments have to do to get and maintain power is to create shortages of what citizens need. We have ObamaCare and Medicare to make health care limited and expensive, making citizens dependent on the State for it.  We have the stopping of energy production through putting the kibosh on pipelines, drilling, fracking, coal and nuclear energy.

Progressives, neo Luddites. Hate progress, hate clean air, hate poor people. 

Acceptable- Deceit, Debt, Decay

I think I may be entering into campaign mode already. Here’s where we are, and I’m wondering, if the shoe were on the other foot, would Leftists be acting so sanguine about our economic and political situation?

This Democrat President has presided over the doubling of the national debt, accumulating more in three years than all the previous presidents combined. If this were a Republican president, would this be acceptable?

This president has offered economic proposals doubling the debt in the next 10 years. If this was a Republican president, would this be acceptable?

This president sued a state (Arizona) about a law (SB1070) that he disagreed with. Neither he nor his Attorney General had ever read the law. If this were a Republican president, would this be acceptable?

This Democrat president joined a lawsuit with a foreign country (Mexico) to force them (Arizona) to allow illegal immigration into their state. If this were a Republican president, would it be acceptable?

This president and his wife have spent $millions on vacations. If this were a Republican president, would it be acceptable? (GW used to go to his ranch and do ranch work, and look at the grief he got.)

This president has hired lobbyists after railing against them, Wall Street investment millionaires after railing against them, tax cheats after railing against them. If a Republican president had shown anger and distain against groups of people, then hired them, would it be acceptable?

This president failed to respond to massive flooding in the Midwest. More people died and were left homeless than the aftermath of Katrina. If it were a Republican president, would this be acceptable? (Despite all the lies, the Bush administration did respond in the aftermath of Katrina, and it was the Gov and Mayor that blew it.)

This president has hired 32 people (czars) to run various agencies, created by him, that weren’t vetted nor are monitored by Congress, but answer to him and him only. If this were a Republican president, would it be acceptable?

Unemployment is at 8.2% and we’re told to accept it as the “new norm”. If this were a Republican president, would 8.2% of the population unable to find work be acceptable? (There was howling when we reached 5.2% under a Republican president.)

Democrats passed a bill, near midnight on Christmas Eve, carrying no votes from the opposition Party. Half the citizens of the country opposed it. The speaker of the house said they have to pass the bill to see what’s in it. If Republicans had done this, would it have been acceptable?

This president closed down offshore drilling illegally. He’s closing down the mining industry. He shut down the nuclear power industry. He shut down getting oil piped down from Canada. If a Republican president shut down whole industries, driving up the costs of energy to citizens, would it be acceptable?

This Democrat president sold guns to Mexican cartels (Operation Fast and Furious) that resulted in lots of dead Mexicans, robbery and rape, plus a US Agent murdered. If a Republican president had done this, would it have been acceptable?

This president spent $billions on green energy programs and companies, all donators to him and his political Party. If a Republican president had spent $billions on a specific industry that both went bankrupt and funneled those tax dollars back to his campaign coffers, would it have been acceptable?

If the credit rating of the United States had been downgraded for the first time in our history, and the president had been a Republican, would it have been so acceptable?

Corruption, lies, deceit, the destruction of the economy, $trillions of added debt, massive unemployment (actually closer to 17% than 10%) reduced credit rating, $740 billion stimulus for “shovel ready jobs” that mostly went to pay state union employees that pay the dues that go back to the Democrat Party, lavish White House parties and vacations, closing down vast sections of the energy industry that actually produces, and sending $billions to proven failed “green” industries that sent those tax payer dollars back to the Democrat Party.

This is a miserable record by any measure, but is acceptable to about half the citizens, the Democrat Party, Communists, Socialists, and Leftists of any stripe. 

Things are bad. 

Dems and Straight Talk Campaign for 2010

Looking at how the Dems are activating their policies, wouldn't be great if they campaigned on what they were doing; not doing and saying they aren't doing it? I know, a bit convoluted, but you'll get the drift here in a minute.

They way they have attacked Arizona, trying to destroy and impoverish American citizens that live there, advocating for the violation of immigration law, and being pro illegal immigration. Here's what they should be saying during their campaign: We advocate for the repeal of existing Federal immigration law. We advocate for open borders so there won't be any illegal immigration. We think anyone that came to this country illegally be given citizenship and registered as a Democrat immediately.

Dems were and are for, TARP, the Bailout, stimulus package, largess to Goldman Sachs and hiring their execs into positions of gov't power, the buying of private companies with printed money and (not yet received) taxes. The US has the highest (maybe second highest) Corporate tax rate in the world. They should be saying in next election: We believe in a weak private sector controlled by government, and all corporate profits should go to the government.

Taxes go up for the half of the country that pay taxes for the non-producing half every time Democrats are in power. The campaign: The money you make belongs to the government, and we'll decide how much of it you get to keep. We have to keep our constituents housed and fed.

Dems are against drilling for oil, oil exploration, coal power, nuclear power, building refineries. They should run on: We know alternative energy sources are really expensive and inefficient, but we are stopping all production of traditional energy sources. Only Venezuela, Vietnam, China and Cuba will be allowed to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. We will agree to pay whatever price they set. GE will be the sole provider of Green Energy and Energy products and services.

Dems have been criticizing Israel and giving a pass to Iran's nuclear armament programs, and not really blaming Hamas, PLO and those guys for much of anything. Dems should just campaign on: We support Terrorist States, and do not support democratic states in the Middle East. We do not support Israel defending itself, and will require they disarm. They are the true threat to Middle East peace.

Dems are for the Fairness Doctrine, and their Supreme Court nominee doesn't think the Constitution allows free speech (really, it's in a published paper she wrote). The Fairness Doctrine is about killing conservative media outlets, and anti-free speech Kagan they wholehearted support. They should campaign: We advocate for an amendment to the Constitution enumerating powers to the government to limit free speech.

Dems passed health care. Honest people, ones that have read the bill, know that it removes all private/personal choice regarding health issues from people. They should campaign: Gov't medical care is the best way, that politicians and government workers know best what medical issues are most important, and how to deal with them. Abortion should be government funded because it is a health issue.

These and a few others, campaign on them, make them a part of the Party Platform, and Dems will absolutely be swept into power unopposed. They're already doing these things, they should just say this is what they're doing. Come on now. Be honest. It's good for you.