Latest Column

I thought that when you crunched the numbers the reason no one had built a power plant of late was because it is fracking expensive.

Are we going to subsidize Nuclear power then?

Are these subsidies going to undercut any green energy projects that have been underway and are capable of creating energy without some how polluting our environment?

Look, if we want nuclear energy than what we should be doing right now is focusing all of our money and brain power on fusion energy. Our lovely government should free up supercomputers from analyzing atomic bomb explosions and allow the scientists who designed and built the computers to use them for energy research. Our particle accelerators should be redistricted in the same way.

At least fusion, solar, & wind energy systems don’t output carbon, or worse, hazardous fuel that sits around for millions of years killing anything that doesn’t have a barrier of lead or concrete in the way.

And of course this is a Republican idea, that is going to be implemented by Democrats, so that Democrats can take all the heat yet again in 4 years.

Republicanism: Think of a bad idea, make sure its the only idea that can pass congress, lay the blame on the other table.

I actually agree with the basic premise of your article. Yes, selling energy independence should be a National Security as well as Environmental issue, yes Nuclear power certainly has an important role in acheiving independence.
.
My question though is this. What, other than historical accident, is the reason the nuclear energy appeals to the Right? Is in only because it PO’s Liberals or is there a more sensible reason?

The performance of the right in the last two years portends a decade of gridlock, as their behavior is returned on to them. A decade of gridlock will nicely play along side the decade of massive unemployment we are facing.

Two can play the obstruct everything game. It doesn’t take any talent to obstruct.

“Yes, yes, I know that the idea of an Apollo program to make America energy-independent has been proposed so often that it’s become a cliche.”

Joe just wrote a 3 line review of Thomas Friedman’s career!

The flaw in the Demitted plan is that solar and wind are so far out into the future as being anything near viable, everyone knows it is Obama jousting at windmills.
.
People know that this is one big game. The result of the game is more “redistribution of wealth”, Obama-style. Good ‘ol Cap n’ Tax. Nothing to generate any more energy, everything to do with getting more money into the hands of big government programs.
.
This election represents the fact that the vast majority of people are simply put, tired of the games.
.
The environmentalists have shut down any prospect of a nuclear energy program which by now would have us light years ahead of any other country. We would now be energy INDEPENDENT had we told the libtarded environmentalist to shove a sock in it.
.
Couple that with the past 3 Administrations being in bed with Big Oil to continue consuming oil at record amounts. What the Republicans and Democrats have left us with is holding the bag. Holding the bag open to throw our hard earned money into so it can be transferred to the Saudis in the middle east.

One problem I see here is that the “liberals give on nuclear/conservatives give on solar/wind/hydro” has been suggested so many times before and it never goes anywhere. It might well be that way because oil and coal interests shop around — they own reps from both parties.

“The environmentalists have shut down any prospect of a nuclear energy program which by now would have us light years ahead of any other country. We would now be energy INDEPENDENT had we told the libtarded environmentalist to shove a sock in it.”

.
Granted, but what will you do with the waste?

“Libtarded?” Is that like “neoconfused?”

“Granted, but what will you do with the waste?”
.
I guess we will always be stuck with liberals

Q: “what will you do with the waste?”
.
A: “Not in my town”
.
Not an unreasonable answer.

The solution that would have real impact, in terms of jobs, national security and the environment, is to develop an alternate transportation fuel. Vehicles need to be the focus.
.
There are options available. For instance, there are US companies that make jet fuel from algae and have flown commercial-jets coast to coast using this fuel exclusively. Supporting these types of companies and technologies would produce the same benefits described in JK’s article on a far grander scale.
.
The technology is possible; the will to use it is lacking.

“The technology is possible; the will to use it is lacking”
.
An asinine statement. If energy companies, more specifically oil companies are as greedy as liberals make them out to be they would provide the “will” in a heartbeat. Alternative fuels always look simple to the left– just spend money. Most oil companies have worked on syn fuels for over 30 yrs (I worked on several projects). Cost and scalability are always the deciding issues not wishes and prayers. There are also other factors that enviro-whackos typically ignore or avoid.

Ethanol is the perfect example. It not only raised the cost of fuel, it raised the cost of food. And for good measure, it actually uses more energy than it saves since the corn needs to be processed and transported. Minor details when you are doing good.

And sometimes despite all the dollars spent, you can’t improve the process. The Fischer-Tropsch process discovered by the Germans during WWII is still the best method we have for synthetic fuel process. And it’s not because of lack of will or dollars.

The issues with nuclear energy have always been cost and waste disposal. Neither problem has been adequately addressed. That’s why no new nukes have been built for decades. In fact, I’m still paying for electricity I used years ago. There’s a line item on my electric bill every month for nuclear plant decommissioning. The costs just keep going and going and going.

Is it asinine, free?
.
The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.
(…)
Darpa’s (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa….

“Darpa has achieved the base goal to date,” she said. “Oil from algae is projected at $2 per gallon, headed towards $1 per gallon.” (link)
.
Perhaps what I’m guilty of is an exaggerated distrust that the Pentagon and our elected (dependent, of course, on re-election funds from the deepest pockets) will follow-through. I doubt too that major media would potentially undercut one of its biggest sources of ad revenue to bring attention to an alternative. Is that really unreasonable?
.
These patents are held by start-ups and could take revenue away from the largest companies in the world- they might conspire against it, no? Perhaps this is a good investment for our government, but I’m not aware that this President (or the last one) and Congress have devoted significant attention or money to developing the technology; are you?
.
And why is my desire to develop an alternative fuel so offensive to you, making you align against me in neat liberal v conservative themes? I expect we’re both for American prosperity.

“Is it asinine, free?”
.
Yes since will has little to do with reality. Further down in your link is a quote form the Algal Biomass Assoc. who has put more time before this may become real on a commercial scale. There are dozens of syn fuels projects on the scrap pile because they could not move from pilot plant stage to commercial.

“McQuiston’s projections took several industry insiders by surprise. “It’s a little farther out in time,” said Mary Rosenthal, director of the Algal Biomass Association. “I am not saying it is going to happen in the next three months, but it could happen in the next two years.”
.
“And why is my desire to develop an alternative fuel so offensive to you”
.
This is just as asinine as your first statement. It is not offensive its your naive attitude that many liberals have with energy. You read some articles and bam! you are an energy expert without a single clue of what is involved. But they are always quick to point out the evils of energy companies all the time they are enjoying the fruits of their work.

Mark down the date – Freep actually made a modicum of sense. While governments and scientists should constantly being looking for new technologies, they also have to have the good sense to realize when enough is enough. I remember being quite optimistic about ethanol – there is no question that the idea of fueling the country through the easiest thing to grow in America (corn) was enticing when it was first explored back in the ’70s – but it has turned into a bit a dead end. Sugar cane ethanol, by contrast, has proven more viable than anticipated – which is good news for our Brazilian friends. Although there will continue to be a small ethenol market going forward, it is time we let go of the idea that ethanol can be massive replacement for oil.

will has little to do with reality
vs
it could happen in the next two years
.
I doubt you would argue that the prospect of having an alternative to oil on the market within two years has gone unmentioned by major media and our elected. To me, that shows a lack of will to transition away from oil. Plus, I don’t think that it is unrealistic that oil companies see this as a threat. If you don’t believe they have been/will be acting to protect their interests, then you are the naive one.
.
Finally, I never claimed to be expert, I said that I believe the technology is possible. Well, isn’t it? And I assert that a new fuel -patented by US companies, produced locally and sold abroad- would provide jobs, help national security and the environment. You launched a personal attack in response and lumped me in with looney, wacky liberals. It certainly seems that this topic is offensive to you.

It isn’t the will that’s lacking, its the $.
·
If you go to the gas station see Algae gas $10 a gallon vs regular old gas $3 a gallon, which do you pick?
·
The problem is that since oil is subsidized at the heart other industries can’t compete. Its the same issue that would face other energy sources if nuclear energy gets subsidized. At the point that one source is profoundly cheaper, it becomes the standard.
·
And anyways, agae gas still emits carbon… so hello to “green” pollution.

In the meantime, yes, we need nuclear power. Disposal of the rods remains a concern but is nothing that the Brits, the French, the Swedes and the Japanese couldn’t handle – I like to think we are equally capable of solving the problem. The risk of overheating this planet, or just plain using up the carbon based fuels of this earth far out weigh the legitimate but solvable problems of nuclear power. The fact that some in the environmental moevement cannot abide that fact is a problem that we have to confront.

I kinda opened a can of worms.. Gotta go, but will say that my original point was that a fuel alternative would be the thing to have significant impact- much greater than nuclear or solar. I can’t say that algae is the way to go with any certainty (there have been failures, to be sure; free is right to bring up ethanol) and perhaps saying “the will is lacking” is overstating it. It just seems to me that any potential alternatives should be pursued with vigor- it should be made a national priority, but I don’t see it.
.
PS. gumOnShoe: Algae draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere when growing; when the derived fuel is burned, the same CO2 is released, making the fuel theoretically zero-carbon, although processing and transporting the fuel requires some energy. (from the link)
.
Thanks all.

FTW

Natural Petroleum will always be the cheapest option until it isn’t at which point it will be way too late. If the actual costs of our fuel use were included in the price, synthetics would already be significantly more competetive. But the ‘invisible hand’ is notoriously short-sighted and when it’s being helped along by oil interests guiding our political process it’s clear that its going to take something dramatic and probably calamitous before we change course.

Senator Hatch and some others politicos have been pushing nuclear energy for years. Will some enterprising reporter, JK, follow the money and find the connections between the nuclear industry and its political supportors? Will the press find out how much the American people will have to subsidize the building of nuclear plants and waste storage? Will the pundits please not pretend to be experts on this subject?
.
Of course, if Angle becomes Senator, I am sure Nevada will welcome nuclear waste storage as one of her jobs programs. Then there is the Art Robinson solution (Rep. candidate for the House in Oregon). Just sprinkle that nuclear waste over the oceans and the US.
.
http://whoisartrobinson.defazioforcongress.org/2010/09/09/art-robinson-sprinkle-nuclear-waste-over-america/

I’ve not done the calculations, but I’d be very surprised if the amount of carbon released by burning algae gas is offset by the amount it collects from the atmosphere. Algae is generally grown in water, in closed systems, and I highly doubt they are putting up fans to ensure all of that water’s carbon is coming directly from the atmosphere.
·
All in all, we don’t truly understand the carbon style, especially on such an intricate level. I’d be very surprised to find out that algae is the “perfect battery”