The New Admin Has Venture Plans

[Roger]

All an eco-minded group needs to see is 'nuclear', and it wouldn't matter HOW clean or wonderful it is, they'll reflexively do what they can to stomp it to death.

DJ White iis a founding member of Greenpeace, currently president of EArth Trust, I dont know how you get much more "ECO GROUP" than that.

Which to you should mean that Greenpeace and Earth Trust are fusion advocates. Unless you reflexively reacted with out facts

Or maybe you were being snarky and I missed it.

[djolds1]

All an eco-minded group needs to see is 'nuclear', and it wouldn't matter HOW clean or wonderful it is, they'll reflexively do what they can to stomp it to death.

DJ White iis a founding member of Greenpeace, currently president of EArth Trust, I dont know how you get much more "ECO GROUP" than that.

Which to you should mean that Greenpeace and Earth Trust are fusion advocates. Unless you reflexively reacted with out facts

Or maybe you were being snarky and I missed it.

I remain hopeful you are correct about pro-nuc policies out of the new Congress & Admin, Roger, and continue to withhold judgment.

[MSimon]

GE is already making money off the issue with their Carbon Credit Master Card (link from “Treehugger”, no less).

Here’s CNN’s story on the new credit card. Interesting note: In the fourth quarter of 2008 as GE/NBC stock fell 30 percent, GE spent $4.26 million on lobbying — that’s $46,304 each day, including weekends, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2008, the company spent a grand total of $18.66 million on lobbying.” Reviewing their lobbying filings, GE’s specific lobbying issues included the “Climate Stewardship Act,” “Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,” “Global Warming Reduction Act,” “Federal Government Greenhouse Gas Registry Act,” “Low Carbon Economy Act,” and “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.” Do you think this “big business” is just concerned about the environment?

Well, check out this column from the Politico, which says: “Several of the companies would gain a commercial advantage after a cap and trade was established. General Electric has an “ecoimagination” line of green appliances and equipment. Robert Stavins, a professor of business and government at Harvard University, said a cap and trade program would be fantastic for GE and other companies that sell products that consume power. He said that if energy costs go up as a result of the regulation — something he believes is likely — a wide array of products from appliances to power plants would become prematurely obsolete and need to be replaced with greener models.” That would mean big money for GE (parent company of NBC and MSNBC). Take a moment and read my previous post on polar ice…check out the graphs and charts…they speak for themselves.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/27/a ... orologist/

Now that is just one aspect of the current administration's policy. Who else has paid for our current government policies?

I have some further thoughts here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... green.html

Updated with second link.

[MSimon]

The greenies aren't stopping the petrol industry today, even though there's apparently enough in clean sources (tidal, etc) to replace it.

Better run the numbers again.

[MSimon]

Let me add that the final outcome of Polywell will depend on who can bribe the most Congress Critters unless the people of America (and the world) take an interest. Then it might have a chance.

[Betruger]

The greenies aren't stopping the petrol industry today, even though there's apparently enough in clean sources (tidal, etc) to replace it.

Better run the numbers again.

That's a really big lie that they managed to get into print magazine, then...

[JLawson]

That's why it's encouraging to see the various articles found on the 'net. The knowledge it's possible is leaking out - and I really find it hard to believe that Dr. Bussard's the only one worldwide who could figure this all out...

Could there be skunk works programs here and there working on this on the QT?

[Roger]

I remain hopeful you are correct about pro-nuc policies out of the new Congress & Admin, Roger, and continue to withhold judgment.

I'll go out on a limb and say we all want a more diversified national energy portfolio. AS soon as the first person jumps to the top of the hill and announces they want to remove one source of energy from the portfolio...

I say we go up there and kick them the hell off the hill.

Solar and wind wont replace base MW, but, they have the capability to utterly alter the portfolio mix away from mid east oil.

Oyster Creek, just re licensed, oldest operating civilian nuke in the US. I think we can now assume that every app for re license done in due diligence as Ouster CReek was, see erosion repairs in containment vessel, will be granted.

Nukes belong in the mix, this from an anti nuke lib...... I dont like it, but the big tent energy portfolio is far more important at this time.

[Helius]

I remain hopeful you are correct about pro-nuc policies out of the new Congress & Admin, Roger, and continue to withhold judgment.

I'll go out on a limb and say we all want a more diversified national energy portfolio. AS soon as the first person jumps to the top of the hill and announces they want to remove one source of energy from the portfolio...

I say we go up there and kick them the hell off the hill.

Solar and wind wont replace base MW, but, they have the capability to utterly alter the portfolio mix away from mid east oil.

Oyster Creek, just re licensed, oldest operating civilian nuke in the US. I think we can now assume that every app for re license done in due diligence as Ouster CReek was, see erosion repairs in containment vessel, will be granted.

Nukes belong in the mix, this from an anti nuke lib...... I dont like it, but the big tent energy portfolio is far more important at this time.

It's not accepting of nuclear power to realize you can't shut down the existing plants. Nuclear power already provides for over 19% of our current electrical consumption, all while being only 9% of capacity. These pressurized water reactors run 24/7, about 2 years without shutting down, regardless of the vagaries of the weather. There is no comparison of wind and solar to the power dense systems of Nuclear Energy and even coal. Since 1990 Nuclear Energy accounted for 1/3 of new electrical energy production, all without adding a single plant to the 104 existing, producing plants.

If our current president were really an advocate of "bottom up" rather than "top down" he'd stop the insane quest to tax low cost producers to build high cost electrical generating capacity from power weak sources. The true "bottom up" approach would be to render Coal generation of electricity untenable through lower cost electrical generation which can only be done through power dense systems.

We need to restart our research in the Integral Fast Reactor, and restart research in the Molten salt reactors. There is new light that Thorium based Molten salt reactors may very well produce electricity as cheaply or perhaps even at a lower cost than coal.

My family and friends in the St. Lawrence Valley and Lake Ontario basin depend on low cost electricity from Hydro and Nuclear power for the refinement and fabrication of aluminium. If we think we've lost business to overseas because of our higher labor costs, just wait until we tax low cost producers through cap and trade to finance wind, solar and insulation. Our prized Aluminium plants will *need* to seek cheap power as our current sources are usurped to cover for weak low power density sources of ...."energy". If they don't move, they won't be able to compete with countries that skipped the wind thing and can provide electricity more cheaply.

There is nothing "green" about wind or solar. Green is that which can continue the green revolution. Through the green revolution, India became a net exporter of food. The problem in that the green revolution is not sustainable if we don't invest in power dense systems, but instead buy into the ruse of the minimalists that power weak systems are enough, and restarting basic research in Nuclear Energy is not warranted.

[MSimon]

The greenies aren't stopping the petrol industry today, even though there's apparently enough in clean sources (tidal, etc) to replace it.

Better run the numbers again.

That's a really big lie that they managed to get into print magazine, then...

I dunno. When a plan for a new refinery is mooted who comes out against it? Of course we could be being lied to. Shell may be using enviros in its war with BP. GE may be using cap and trade as a weapon in its war against Westinghouse.

As to tidal etc - Let me add that there is enough gravitational energy in the one asteroid to power the earth for at least centuries. Now all you have to do is collect it at a reasonable price.

There is plenty of energy - if that is all you want - the question always is: at what cost?

Tidal energy is expensive. You need devices that can withstand waves, wind, and weather. A particularly hostile environment. The devices must be anchored to the sea bed. The energy produced has to be transmitted to some place where it will do some good. All this is expensive for a low density energy source. If tidal was a panacea I'd replace the gas tank in my vehicle with a water tank and some float driven generators. And don't forget the batteries. A couple of AAA cells would get you farther than the gas tank tidal generator.

[MSimon]

The true "bottom up" approach would be to render Coal generation of electricity untenable through lower cost electrical generation which can only be done through power dense systems.

Wind will deliver electricity at lower cost than coal once the standard wind turbine gets into the 5 to 10 MW range. Wind is already cost competitive with coal at the best sites with the current 3 MW production turbines.

Larger devices will probably require superconducting generators to get the weight at the top of the mast down.

Of course that still leaves the problem of storage, back-up capacity, etc.

[Betruger]

Thanks for that counter argument MSimon.

[Helius]

The true "bottom up" approach would be to render Coal generation of electricity untenable through lower cost electrical generation which can only be done through power dense systems.

Wind will deliver electricity at lower cost than coal once the standard wind turbine gets into the 5 to 10 MW range. Wind is already cost competitive with coal at the best sites with the current 3 MW production turbines.

Larger devices will probably require superconducting generators to get the weight at the top of the mast down.

Of course that still leaves the problem of storage, back-up capacity, etc.

Yes, it's all the ancillary systems that raises the cost, and the risk of grid failure. It kills me that they want to treat wind as reliable "always on" base load. When the Wind dies down overall, they plan to rely on backup systems, undefined, that will still incapable of baseload production. If the backup systems were capable of baseload production, they why in heck do we need wind? They simply don't have their thinking caps on.

I realize they must have their reasons for leading us down this road of failure, but, dang if I can figure ot what it is.

We must do better, or our competitors will eat our lunch.

[MSimon]

The true "bottom up" approach would be to render Coal generation of electricity untenable through lower cost electrical generation which can only be done through power dense systems.

Wind will deliver electricity at lower cost than coal once the standard wind turbine gets into the 5 to 10 MW range. Wind is already cost competitive with coal at the best sites with the current 3 MW production turbines.

Larger devices will probably require superconducting generators to get the weight at the top of the mast down.

Of course that still leaves the problem of storage, back-up capacity, etc.

Yes, it's all the ancillary systems that raises the cost, and the risk of grid failure. It kills me that they want to treat wind as reliable "always on" base load. When the Wind dies down overall, they plan to rely on backup systems, undefined, that will still incapable of baseload production. If the backup systems were capable of baseload production, they why in heck do we need wind? They simply don't have their thinking caps on.

I realize they must have their reasons for leading us down this road of failure, but, dang if I can figure ot what it is.

We must do better, or our competitors will eat our lunch.

Base load systems are called that because they take a while to start up and shut down and they are most efficient when providing 100% of rated capacity. There is nothing inherent in the system that requires base load plants other than cost and that supply must meet demand.

Getting our competitors to eat our lunch is the plan. Take America down a peg. Too much power and influence. It was all in the campaign.

[IntLibber]

You should separate the incapable from the unwilling. And since one can never be sure I give people the benefit of the doubt. For at least 50 nanoseconds. Sometimes longer.

But I will say this: I have met stupid people who were not malicious. I have never observed the reverse.

Jim Hansen
Michael Mann
the rest of the Hockey Team

smart and malicious, to a man.