Comments Posted By Travis Monitor
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 175 Comments
OBAMA'S RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY IS THE RIGHT APPROACH
"Travis, didn’t I say we should do both?" If so, excuse my expression of violent agreement.
"I agree that you can put some blame on anti nuclear activists but some blame also has to be on the side of the nuclear industry. For example, you don’t trust the government but you expect folks to believe the assurances of an industry? Based on past performance?"
The civilian nuclear power industry in USA has been highly regulated and for the most part has a tremendous track record of safety." Would you trust the government more if they were more open?"
Yes."In your case probably not but the same goes for the industry. Even if they were much safer now (which they are) some will still remember Three Mile Island etc. "
In TMI, there was a tremendous scare 30 years ago, but at the end of the day, nobody died. As the saying goes, more people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car. Compared with the deaths of coal miners, the deaths in transportation or construction, civilians western nuclear power is very safe as an industry. (Chernobyl is non-comparable: USSR technology based on unstable graphite reactors that had no containment vessels due to being built in 1950s by a communist govt careless about human lives.)In fact, the containment vessel at TMI worked, the release of radiation was miniscule, and the various safety margins were proved out. Since then, much has been improved because of the hundreds of reactor-years of operations improving training, operations, efficiency, etc. We have had no incidents at the level of TMI since then.
"Mistrust of authority is very American attitude and that goes both ways left, right, Buchanan, Nader, Paul etc"
A truism that doesnt tell us why we should distrust those who inform us of the safety of nuclear power but trust those who push expensive boondoggles with promises of 'you really need this because global warming is a crisis' when it manifestly is not. It's time to stop being sheep over Govt claims and UN IPCC politicized BS climate reports. Dont trust any UN bureaucrat over 30.I dont trust the Governmentv or industry to tell me nuclear power is safe. I look at the track record and make my conclusions: 100+ reactors in operation and no serious incidents since Three Mile Island 30 years ago. Zero deaths due to nuclear power accidents throughout its entire history. If the airline industry was that safe, there would be less than one airline crash every 30 years.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 27.10.2009 @ 08:24
"The entire nation’s future energy security is being sold down the river because Harry Reid wants to guarantee that some casino owners continue to beat the odds. So much for science as a basis for public policy."
Indeed. This is a classic case of selfish pandering trumping the public interest, and fear-based NIMBYism gone mad.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 26.10.2009 @ 20:51
"ok, the majority of Americans favors nuclear energy. Fine, you are from around Austin. What are the odds nuclear waste is going to be deposited in Hill Country? Or anywhere in Texas for that matter? Good luck with that."
1. the entire national nuclear energy waste stream is quite small volume-wise.
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheets/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/
"All the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in 50 years of operation—approximately 60,000 metric tons—would, if stacked end to end, only cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about 7 yards."
This is a tiny fraction of the volumes from any other industrial process at large scale.2. Most nuclear used fuel is currently safely stored on site at active nuclear power plants, including the plants in Texas. The South Texas plant that services Austin is one. It takes up little space and is generally quite safe.
3. Because nuclear waste streams are small, it is feasible to store ALL the nuclear used fuel in a single repository. hence, yucca mtn. It's a good idea, better than spreading it out, especially when it comes to tracking this stuff down and dealing with it long term (ie centuries). However, you cannot underestimates govt's capacity for taking a simple idea and turning it into an expensive boondoggle, and you cant underestimate the duplicity of the eco-whackos, who oppose the better solution for nuclear used fuel (either reprocessing or a single repository) and force the least acceptable solution (near-permanent onsite storage) as the de facto solution.
I've concluded that anti-nuclear activists are in fact the enemies of the environment, wittingly or unwittingly. The reality is that nuclear energy is safe and environmentally friendly.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 26.10.2009 @ 20:07
I generally agree with you. However, other measures e.g. making our cities more compact, cars and houses more energy efficient, developing solar and wind energy shouldn’t be neglected."
Why is this either/or and not both/and? DO both! ... if the goal is energy independence and getting off of fossil fuels (not sure we need the latter, but if we do) then we need ALL OF THE ABOVE.
The real risk is wasted money in directions on things that simply dont work or are economically unwise. In terms of cost-effectiveness nuclear energy > wind > solar, so billions on solar while ignoring nuclear is wrong.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 26.10.2009 @ 19:46
"nuclear energy certainly has its positive sites but also drawbacks e.g. waste."
Not much of a drawback. The 'waste' is used fuel that could be recycled, about 96% of the useful energy remains after it goes through a once-through reactor. If recycling is great for all our other resources, why not nuclear fuel?
Is it bad because the French do it? Jimmy Carter shut down reprocessing due to concerns over proliferation. 30 years of experience should have taught us that a domestic civilian reprocessing capability has zero to do with RPNK's and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons."Let’s say conservatives generally favor nuclear energy, ok?" A majority of Americans favor nuclear power.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 25.10.2009 @ 13:57
Baffling.
First, there is NOTHING NEW here, so why speak of "Obama is proposing"? ... You could have written this column the day after Bush's 2007 State of Union, where he went for all this kind of stuff. The Federal Government has ALREADY been funding this research to the tune of billions its not what "Obama is proposing", its what Clinton/Bush/Congress have been spending for years.
Also, it's a strawman to speak of some self-funding tinkerer as the only alternative to Federal money. In fact, we do need money to fund innovation and it doesnt have to come from a wannabe Edison's pocket. The Venture Capital community has been pouring a lot into "green technologies". Billions, in fact.
Last, saying 'its a great idea' then pointing out "Yes, there is some waste in the bill", identifying the billions (and not mentioning even more billions) wasted, undercuts the argument. Doubtless you could find some project with positive ROI if you are throwing billions at a problem... but CO2 sequestration from coal power plants? Tried and cost overruns have gone galore. Solar? Still way too expensive and sucking up a lot of money in subsidies. Ethanol? Billions down the drain every year. In fact, a better plan is to cut the spending that is wasteful, like ethanol subsidies 100%, and use that money to have an R&D only (no massive subsidies) on a few of the most promising technologies.
MOST of the alternative energy R&D and subsidies do NOT work, its probably a 20% work/ 80% dont work ratio. So there is much value in puncturing this phony balloon that all such programs are automatically good, and going after wasteful programs. There is perhaps some merit in pointing out that private-public R&D subsidies, while wading dangerously into industrial policy/corruption areas, at least is less wasteful than straight out subsidies like ethanol, wind/solar power giveaways, etc.
And for those desperate to make an anti-obama angle, let's be clear. The "throw money at it" approach to alternative energy has been a bi-partisan policy, so we cannot fault Obama for doing no more than upping the ante via the stimulus.
This column, like the subsidies for 'green energy' themselves, misses the opportunity to have proper critical analysis of what works and what doesnt. The failure of a critical approach to workability in alt energy will result in bloated and underperforming Govt programs. We know this will happen because its happened - again and again (SynFuels, hydrogen cars, fuel cells, Co2 sequestration, solar - all have gotten billions and little of it has paid off). It's wrong to treat such waste as some kind of inevitability in the overall package.
PS. #11: Nuclear energy does need R&D support. We have 1970s era PWR technology, but next-gen safer modular fast lead-cooled reactors need R&D as do other alternatives. A balanced approach would include nuclear energy with other energy types on a level alt energy playing field.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 25.10.2009 @ 13:47
WAR ON FOX OR BUSINESS AS USUAL?
"In the ongoing war of words, the administration has finally stopped bringing knives to a gunfight."
How apropos to call it 'war of words'. Obama cant fight the Taliban, but he can fight Shep Smith. Truth is the first casualty of war, so the Obama administration's fight against media dissent is a fight that harms truth.
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 24.10.2009 @ 10:50
"Media Matters’ documentation of the extensive collaboration between ... "
Will Media Matter out themselves and their own sordid agit-prop campaign to twist news stories and to plant leftwing bias and liberal 'memes' into the news narratives??? When will they admit that - in effect - they are egging on the Obama White House from the puppet-master George Soros on through his coterie of left-wing special interest groups, and poster like you are just the foot soldiers in his sordid army?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7150
"To summarize, Soros and his Open Society Institute pour millions of dollars into the coffers of MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy Alliance. In turn, these organizations funnel some of that money to Media Matters. "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=112897
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 24.10.2009 @ 10:47
"Media Matters for America, the self-described "progressive" research center and media monitor, has called on "folks" to "really go at" Fox News while demanding other media organizations stop treating America's top cable news outlet as a journalistic enterprise.."
"Who’d a thunk it that Obama would be a paranoid narcissist ?"
A critic pegged him as such in FEB 2008, a guy named "Spengler" from the Asia Times (aka David Goldman). I read it and thought it a bit harsh, but we see Obama's critics far LESS surprised with how things are turning out than his supporters - so who was really closer to the truth back in 2008? .... here's a Spengler update on the topic:
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 24.10.2009 @ 10:35
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/spengler/2009/10/13/obama-in-nightmare-alley-what-asia-times-online-refused-to-publish/
"the issue is that FOX news is in the pocket of the GOP in a blatant and direct manner"
And 'friend of Bill Clinton' Rick Kaplan was head of CNN during much of the Clinton years aka Clinton News Network. And the New York Times is in the pocket of a raving Bush-hating leftist named Pinch Sulzberger.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/ny-magazine-sulzberger-stupidity-could-cause-ny-times-collapseAnd news outlet after news outlet - from newspapers like LA Times to TV outlets like ABC News or CBS - is staffed and run by liberals who let their bias seep into reporting. Here's Newsweek's latest liberal-media-bias joke:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2009/10/24/newsweek-gets-flood-anti-biden-letters-publishes-none-them
Here's LA Times, letting an ACORN board member defend ACORN while posing as an outside observer:
http://patterico.com/2009/10/23/fact-challenged-piece-on-acorn-in-l-a-times/Ailes has Republican ties, sure, but Dan Rather has Democrat ties, gave many Democrat fundraising speeches on numerous occasions.Chris Matthews was former lege aide to Tip O'Neill; we know George Stephenopolous' role in the Clinton White House, etc. Claiming that Ailes is unique is bizarre and incompetently false. Measuring ties by contributions - the media is 100 to 1 Democrat:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2008/07/24/medias-campaign-donations-tilt-100-1-favor-democratsAnd so it goes ... obvious blatant liberal media bias happens on a daily basis.
"Don’t tell me that any other MSM outlet is in the pocket of the Dems in the same way."
No, we wouldnt dare accost you with the TRUTH. In the USA, the highly partisan Obama administration is picking favorites in terms of its news channels,
Comment Posted By Travis Monitor On 24.10.2009 @ 10:04
and is blatantly favoring their boot-lickers and liberal sock puppets in the media, while trying to freeze out voices of dissent. It's beyond Nixonian and into BananaRepublic-style Strongman manipulation:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/10/23/msnbc-s-olbermann-maddow-nothing-wrong-record-obama-visit-bush-did-it
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/21/revealed-who-else-was-at-that-secret-obama-briefing-with-olby-and-maddow/
