Democrats Go "Nucelar" Over Energy
SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY
If we examine the energy strategy of the Obama administration, it can be summed up as: "And then a miracle happens."
President Obama has directed his comrade, Lisa Jackson head of the EPA, to effectively shut down 1/3 of the electricity produced from coal. President Obama has taken credit for the increased oil production in the U.S., primarily on state and private land, while effectively reducing output on federal lands. President Obama and his friends, led by Sen. Harry Reid, effectively shut down new nuclear plant building by shutting down Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal.
"I am proud that after over two decades of fighting the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, the project is finally being terminated.
The proposal to dump nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain threatened the health and safety of Nevadans and people across our nation. Yucca Mountain, which is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is simply not a safe or secure site to store nuclear waste for any period of time." [source]
Which led to:
The U.S. government said it will stop issuing permits for new nuclear power plants and license extensions for existing facilities until it resolves issues around storing radioactive waste.
The government's main watchdog, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believes that current storage plans are safe and achievable. But a federal court said that the NRC didn't detail what the environmental consequences would be if the agency is wrong.
"We are now considering all available options for resolving the waste issue," the five-member NRC said in a ruling earlier this week. "But, in recognition of our duties under the law, we will not issue [reactor] licenses until the court's remand is appropriately addressed."
There are 14 reactors awaiting license renewals at the NRC, and an additional 16 reactors awaiting permits for new construction.But then a court also believes that CO2 is a "pollutant."
The fact is that the "green revolution" has been embraced by the cadres who lead the Obama administration's "economic revolution." They truly believe that by distributing the nation's wealth in alternative energy the nation will be more secure economically in the future. The problem is that other nations who have been more aggressive with this policy have had to backtrack because the "alternatives" have demonstrated a distinct lack of equality or superiority to coal or nuclear generated electricity.
Here is the real problem: Subsidies make solar appear viable today, so where is the motivation for an entrepreneur to risk money, or even focus on developing real energy alternatives when solar is “almost” there? How can an inventor justify striving with the effort it takes to really develop something great when he is competing against a straw man technology which can provide power at almost the same cost of traditional power sources today? But of course it really doesn’t.
The answer is he can’t justify the effort, so the next great thing is not developing, at least not with the sense of urgency it should be. Why enter a contest when you are competing against someone with an unfair advantage? You may be the faster swimmer, but your competitor is using flippers.
Solar subsidies are a placebo which is giving the general public a sense of security about our energy future and is robbing the motivation of those entrepreneurs that could actually address our energy problems. Subsidies are much worse that just wasteful, they’re diabolical. They lull us into thinking we have almost solved the problem and they hinder us from seeking the real solutions. [full article]In Britain, the economic impact is far worse than the mere issue of substituting a few percentage points of conventionally generated electricity with solar power. There, the commitment to wind power is real and economically harmful:
THE Government’s ideological obsession with wind power is inflicting ever greater damage on Britain, driving up our energy bills and ruining our countryside. Brutalist, expensive and inefficient, wind farms are nothing more than vast monuments to political vanity. They contribute little to our electricity supply, yet they cost us all a fortune.
The full insanity of this approach has been exposed by a new report from respected economist Professor Gordon Hughes, who warns that the Government’s green agenda is likely to push up electricity bills by more than £300 a year by 2020. In total, argues Professor Hughes, the Government’s subsidy for wind power amounts to more than £124billion over the next eight years, a colossal burden on families and businesses at a time when the economy continues to struggle. [full article]Right now, the only reprieve from this occurring in the U.S. is that natural gas prices have fallen dramatically due to new sources from shale fields... a source that the government was reluctant to allow into production. At some point, the price of natural gas will rise if only because its cost elsewhere is so high that it will be economically worthwhile to export it rather than sell it in the U.S.
Then the real impact of the anti-coal, anti-nuclear, pro-wind, pro-solar policy will hit home... and hard.
From 
