Chuck Hagel: Secretary Of Prevent Defense?

SEARCH BLOG: OBAMA.

President Obama's selection for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has certainly received wide-ranging endorsements.

Colin Powell - "To show you the kinda courage this guy has, he quit after one year because he felt the Veterans Administration was not doing a good job for veterans. He knows what war is, and he will fight a war if it's necessary. But he's a guy who will do it with great deliberation and care. He is a fellow who speaks his mind. He sometimes gets in trouble with those who thinks he should not speak his mind, but he says what he believes and he sticks with it."

Declaring Hagel to "superbly qualified" as the next secretary of defense, a staunch advocate for those in uniform, Powell implicitly contrasted Hagel with neoconservatives as he pointedly declared: "This is a guy who would be very careful about putting their lives at risk because he put his life at risk."

On Hagel and Israel: Powell called Hagel a "very, very strong supporter of Israel. But that doesn't mean you have to agree with every single position that the Israeli government takes."

That sounds pretty good.

Chuck Schumer - "When Sen. Hagel’s name first surfaced as a potential nominee for Secretary of Defense, I had genuine concerns over certain aspects of his record on Israel and Iran," Schumer said in a statement Tuesday, a day after meeting with Hagel for an hour and a half at the White House in a private session to hash out Schumer's concerns.

"Sen. Hagel could not have been more forthcoming and sincere," Schumer said.

"On Iran, Sen. Hagel rejected a strategy of containment and expressed the need to keep all options on the table in confronting that country," Schumer said, referring to comments that Hagel's opponents pointed to as evidence he could be soft on Israel's arch enemy. "But he didn’t stop there. In our conversation, Sen. Hagel made a crystal-clear promise that he would do 'whatever it takes' to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including the use of military force. He said his 'top priority' as Secretary of Defense would be the planning of military contingencies related to Iran."

That sounds pretty good.

Sayyid Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini - Iran's Foreign Ministry says it is hopeful the appointment of former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon would improve relations between Tehran and the U.S.

Asked about Hagel's nomination, ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday thatTehran was hopeful that there would be "practical changes" to U.S. foreign policy, and that nations would change their attitude towards the U.S. if it respected their rights.

Well, how much better could that be?

Chuck Hagel is evidently a man who is reluctant to use military power, will prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and is preferred by Iran because they definitely do not want to obtain nuclear weapons and want to improve relations with the U.S.

Iran says a religious decree issued by the country's supreme leader banning nuclear weapons is binding for the Iranian government. 

Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast says the West must understand the significance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa for the Islamic Republic, and that the edict should end the debate over whether Tehran is pursuing nuclear weapons. 

Khamenei said last year that Iran is not seeking atomic arms. He called possessing such weapons a "sin" as well as "useless, harmful and dangerous." [source]

Well, that seals the deal.  We can have a Secretary of Defense who will use a "prevent" defense strategy of soft containment or anything else, but not unwisely and after a lot of negotiations, to ensure that Iran will not obtain nuclear weapons ... which they promise [cross their hearts and hope to die] they will not pursue ... while President Obama pursues a nuclear disarmament effort.

There are no enemies in this world... only friends we haven't made -- anonymous, dead optimist.

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG.
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE.
• GO TO BLOG LABELS.
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS.

..

N.Y. Times Rewrites Nuclear History

SEARCH BLOG: NUCLEAR.

From The New York Times:

There is also a small group of people who still believe fervently in nuclear weapons. President Obama had to buy passage of the New START treaty with Russia, in 2010, with a promise to spend $185 billion to modernize warheads and delivery systems over 10 years — revealing that while support for nuclear weapons may not be broad, it runs deep. That support endures because of five widely held myths.

First, let's start with the "small group of people" thought.  On what basis is that statement made?  Perhaps wishful thinking?

Nuclear weapons are not weapons of choice; they are weapons of the very last resort.

... new research by the historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa and other scholars shows that Japan surrendered not because of the atom bomb but because the Soviets renounced neutrality and joined the war.

Bombs dropped; war ended.  No cause and effect there.  That despite the vast number of historians who have pointed out that the Japanese military was prepared to fight to the last man and make all of Japan a bloodbath.  Dying for the Emperor was consistent with being martyred for Allah.  Sixty-five years or so can alter one's memory.

Building ever more destructive weapons simply increases the horror of war, not the certainty of ending it.

No, the use of overwhelming technologically superior weapons of mass destruction destroys the will to continue fighting.  If both sides have and use similar technology, then it is a matter of exhaustion not despair.  Germany was bombed into submission by exhaustion.

The nuclear umbrella claim ought to have been dropped at the same time, but there was too much American foreign policy riding on it for anyone to make this argument. After all, if Britain couldn’t deter an attack on its own far-flung islands, how could deterrence prevent attacks on other countries?

A total non-sequitur.  The fact that a country has nuclear weapons does not mean it would use such weapons for every territorial dispute.  The British-Argentinian dispute over some minor islands in the south Atlantic hardly qualifies as an argument that nuclear weapons are not formidable deterrence.

Fourth is the myth of the long peace: the argument that the absence of nuclear war since 1945 means nuclear weapons have “kept the peace.”

This, again, falls into the "preventing attacks" nonsense.  Most conflicts have been between non-nuclear opponents or attacks that could be contained without the extreme nuclear option.  Does anyone truly believe that nuclear-armed Israel has ever felt pushed far enough by the Palestinians or Lebanese to use their nuclear arsenal?  Does anyone truly believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would attack Israel knowing that it faced retaliation with 200 nuclear warheads?  Unless nations are truly suicidal, it is the nuclear option that constrains conflict, not escalates it.

The last and most stubborn myth is that of irreversibility. Whenever idealists say that they want to abolish nuclear weapons, so-called realists shake their heads and say, in tones of patient condescension. “You can’t stuff the nuclear genie back in the bottle.”

Conversely, there is no evidence that you can.  Such ethical and conscientious nations such as North Korea, Pakistan, and [soon] Iran show that the genie not only won't go back into the bottle, but that the bottle has been irreversibly broken.  One can argue "how much is enough," but one cannot argue that "none is possible."

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG.
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE.
• GO TO BLOG LABELS.
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS.

..

Going Nuclear Over Thorium

SEARCH BLOG: NUCLEAR ENERGY

From time to time I receive comments or emails that are interesting enough to serve as the basis for a post.  The following was received from Ben Robbins:

Bruce, 

Love what I have read so far in your blog. In regards to US energy policy, I ran across a type of nuclear energy that uses an entirely different reactor design. It is called a liquid flouride thorium reactor (LFTR). LFTRs are a development of the molten salt reactor (MSR) experiment of the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The MSR was designed by Dr. Alvin Weinberg, who was the developer of the light water reactor commonly in use today. He foresaw that their would be a need for a safer reactor that generated very little waste, which is how the MSR was born. The MSR was fueled using plutonium and uranium. The LFTR takes it a step further and uses thorium, which is a very common element in the Earth's crust. It is also almost always found with rare earth elements (REE), which are used in everything from wind turbine generators to pretty much every electronic device. Here's a brief summary of LFTR's benefits: 

-Inherently/passively safe
-Reactor is much less complex as a result of its passive safety, so it is also much cheaper
-Scalable (can be increased in size, or decreased to fit, say, an isolated town or military base)
-Burns up nearly all of its fuel, unlike current reactors which barely burn up any at all
-Can be used to burn up existing high level waste
-Produces useful medical elements
-Produces plutonium 238, which is used by NASA for long-distance space exploration missions
-Thorium is a common element, and therefore inexpensive as a fuel
-Doesn't require a water supply to operate, so can be located anywhere 

I won't take up anymore of your time, but I would suggest you watch about ten minutes of the following Youtube video featuring Kirk Sorensen, who is leading the effort to develop and deploy this technology.

My earliest posts mentioning Thorium reactors were:

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2006

Supporting Global Warming

MONDAY, APRIL 09, 2007

The French Were Correct... And Still Are
Thorium continues to be "just beyond the horizon" in terms of acceptance, but perhaps that horizon is getting closer.  The biggest issue is not so much the technology, but the social and political attitudes toward nuclear power which are grounded in decades old technology.  Those who consider themselves ecologically "green" are unwilling to admit that "renewables" are notoriously unreliable and costly and that the only "climate-friendly" reliable energy source is nuclear.  Of course, you have to have religious conviction that CO2 is "climate-unfriendly" to even worry about such things.

RELATED:

Capitalizing On The Energy Scarcity Myth [MAY BE SLOW LOADING, BUT A VERY GOOD ARTICLE] 

No Nukes - Energy Or Enervation

2012 IS HERE

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO BLOG LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS

..

No Nukes - Energy Or Enervation

SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY

From the BBC:

Tomari shutdown leaves Japan without nuclear power 

Japan is switching off its last working nuclear reactor, as part of the safety drive since the March 2011 tsunami triggered a meltdown at the Fukushima plant. 

The third reactor at the Tomari plant, in Hokkaido prefecture, is shutting down for routine maintenance.

It leaves Japan without energy from atomic power for the first time for more than 40 years. 

Until last year, Japan got 30% of its power from nuclear energy. 

Hundreds of people marched through Tokyo, waving banners to celebrate what they hope will be the end of nuclear power in Japan.

The story title is a bit misleading because the shutdown is for maintenance, not mothballing.

[image] Regardless, Japan's experience with an old-style, poorly sited nuclear plan where back-up and safety systems failed are all that is needed to turn public opinion against nuclear power.  That leaves Japan in quite a predicament.  There is a likelihood of power shortages and businesses could be severely affected by that.  Solar and wind power are not viable options and natural gas would have to be imported to make up the difference... once power plants could be built.

But the real kicker is that Japan is heavily dependent on oil for its power and the loss of nuclear power results in the most expensive source of electrical power having to take up the slack.

The U.S., unlike Japan, is rich in fuel sources for electricity.  But having the sources available and having the freedom to use those sources is another issue.  Anthony Watt's blog has an expose into the continuing enervation of America.

How Green Was My Bankruptcy? 

2012 IS HERE

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO BLOG LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS

..

Obama To Sell Surplus Nukes To Saudis?

SEARCH BLOG: MIDDLE EAST

From Bloomberg:

... the Saudis strongly believe that if Iran is able to militarize its nuclear program while it remains a signatory to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT, this would render the treaty worthless. The likely Saudi response would be to seek a nuclear capability of its own.

It looks like the old saw "a market in everything" has brought an opportunity for President Obama to kill two birds with one stone: while he weakens the U.S. nuclear arsenal with unilateral disarmament, he can create a "nuclear solution" for the Middle East by selling U.S. surplus.

RELATED:

Obama - Unilateral Disarmament??? 

2012 IS HERE

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO BLOG LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG

..

Middle East Going Nuclear

SEARCH BLOG: IRAN

Iran's peaceful nuclear program, as corroborated in Iran's English Radio website, is raising interest among other Middle Eastern nations.

Citing an another Middle East energy shortage, the Saudi government announced that they are keenly interested in following the lead of Iran, the nation with the first major Middle East energy shortage, in pursuing the nuclear option. [source]

Apparently, nuclear weapons are far more compact and release energy much faster than old-fashioned nuclear power plants.  Such efficiency is highly desirable.

2012 IS HERE

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO BLOG LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG

..

Energy Report

SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY

Yesterday's The Wall Street Journal had an entire section devoted to energy developments.

If you don't get that newspaper, you can access the online version here.

The world's focus has temporarily moved away from energy issues due to the financial problems in Europe.  That diversion will be short-lived compared with the probable fallout from the Federal government's inexorable incursion into the energy marketplace.

As individuals, we are going to feel the pinch in our pocketbooks in the near future and the pinch will become a vise as regulations and restrictions choke off coal and oil.  The Wall Street Journal rightly focuses on natural gas as the only viable U.S. alternative to those energy sources.  The bureaucratic and political nightmare surrounding nuclear power in the U.S. makes it unlikely that the French solution has a chance here.  Wind and solar energy may someday... decades from now... achieve 15% of our energy supply.  Those are not solutions... simply stopgaps... because they are subject to the whims of the weather.

Ultimately, technological advancements will make some clean, reliable, safe, inexhaustible energy source available to the world.  But for now, natural gas appears to be the heir-apparent to coal and oil... unless the EPA gets in the way again.

Yes, natural gas does produce CO2.  So what?

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO POST LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG

..

Conspiracy Theory For The Gulf Oil Slick

SEARCH BLOG: ENVIRONMENT and ENERGY
There seems little doubt that the giant oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico is a vast man-made disaster... probably much worse than anything ever seen in those parts. So now I am waiting to receive one of those frequent emails that come with conspiracy theories from Wayne Madsen.

Usually, those emails contain some nefarious plot supposedly concocted by George Bush and the CIA. How about this:

[Image from The New York Times]

WMR has learned through back channels that former President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been involved with interest of the nuclear industry to sabotage President Barack Obama's attempt to expand U.S. offshore drilling, something that this group has secretly opposed for over a decade. WMR has learned that both Bush and Cheney have received millions of dollars to push nuclear power as the source of U.S. energy independence and see abundant oil as a threat to their plans and enormous profits.
This nuclear group has secretly contracted with rogue members of the CIA to subvert all efforts to expand oil production. WMR has evidence that a critical component of the oil drilling rig was intentionally weakened in a manner that would delay the failure for several weeks and make it impossible to detect after the failure caused the destruction of the oil rig.
Bush and Cheney are now meeting secretly with the nuclear group to target other energy producing sources in plausibly deniable ways that leave nuclear power as the only viable alternative of electrical energy independence. They are expected to receive a total of over $50 million each for their involvement. WMR has learned that funds will be in the forms of various impossible-to-trace assets which are easily convertible to cash.
Bush, Cheney, and the CIA have denied such involvement; however, WMR sources are impeachable.

No doubt this little spoof of the conspiracy-around-each-corner author will provoke an equally absurd conspiracy theory.  How about Hall Of Record gets paid enormous sums by the oil industry to deflect blame from them?  Nope, just checked and nothing has come in from BP or any other company in the oil industry.  Too bad.

UPDATE


TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE TAKING THIS TOO SERIOUSLY....  THIS POST WAS A SPOOF OF THE CONSPIRACY EMAILS THAT GET FORWARDED TO ME ORIGINATING FROM HERE. BUSH AND CHENEY ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR EVERY PROBLEM THAT OCCURS DURING THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO POST LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG

..

The Energy Equation

SEARCH BLOG: ENERGY

Today, the Obama administration announced the plans to have offshore wind-powered electricity generators in place by 2013.

That paired in my brain with another piece of information posted at Al Fin. I love it when our government decides to lead the charge in efforts that have recently been shown to be the worst possible alternatives. You know, like dramatically reducing human produced global warming from our CO2 production... when it's based on hokey science.

27 APRIL 2010

Wind Power Emerges as Scandalous Failure

Hundreds of European offshore wind turbines have a design flaw that causes them to slide on their bases . More, expensive gearbox failures are an industry-wide problem . Worst of all,wind energy is unpredictable and massively expensive for power utilities to integrate into a dynamic power gridPDF. Big wind turbines are gaining a well-deserved reputation as expensive failure-prone hobby-horses for incompetent green activists and politicians.

Now that we have discovered how deep and wide the problem of organised crime infiltration into the wind industry is becoming, it is long past time for taxpayers to begin to confront their elected officials with the massive waste and fraud that their tax dollars are being diverted to support.

Whenever klutzy monolithic governments are made to scramble to solve anonexistent manufactured problem such as carbon climate catastrophe, waste and fraud are guaranteed to occur -- probably on a massive scale. Indeed, that is what we are seeing across a broad panorama of wind industry investment, lobbying, and media public relations. There are literally trillions of dollars to be made in the "clean energy industry", and political reputations to be made. Nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of the juggernaut -- not even the stark cruel facts.

Wind power is expensive, unreliable, and prone to massive breakdown at any time.Siemens and General Electric are attempting to evade one massive problem of wind turbines -- ubiquitous gearbox failures -- but the new turbines have their own problems, and faulty gearboxes are just one piece of the ugly puzzle. Even if wind turbines could perform as specified for their full "20 year lifetime", they would not be close to competitive with nuclear, coal, or gas for electric power production.

The Obama - Pelosi regime is in too deeply to back out of the crime-ridden enterprise now. They have to "tough it out" and hope that they can keep the media under their thumb so that the masses of taxpayers never learn what they are doing.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
• GO TO POST LABELS
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG

..

Grading Obama One-Third Into His Term

SEARCH BLOG: OBAMA

Coming up on the end of the first third of President Obama's term, we can begin to assess the success or failure of his administration.

• Economy: D Minus
  The stimulus package has helped General Motors and Chrysler avoid collapse, but it merely shifted the burden to taxpayers and creditors. Meanwhile, financial institutions have taken the stimulus funds without necessarily turning on the credit spigot, consequently the housing market has remained severely damaged and businesses find loans for operations difficult to obtain leading to a continuation of high unemployment. [chart from Google]
  
• Health Care: D
  While forcing through a partisan "re-form" of the health care system, the Obama administration has alienated a significant portion of the population, threatened the careers of Democratic Party members of Congress, set up the nation for massive deficits related to health care [the CBO allows $500 billion of savings from diverting funds from Medicare and is based on 10 years of revenue to the government versus 6 years of health care coverage... check the chart closely], potentially driven many doctors to consider early retirement, and may well have created disincentives for those considering a medical career. Meanwhile, the idea that more Americans will be covered by health insurance may be more numbers juggling than reality as businesses react to the burdens of providing health care under the new law. [chart source DailyMe.com]
  
• Military Operations: C
  Contrary to President Obama's initial optimism that the U.S. could simply leave the Middle East and talk ourselves into a lasting peace, U.S. troops will remain beyond his campaign timeline in Iraq while a new quagmire is developing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, politically correct dictates from the Administration now place the troops in a damned if you shoot when you shouldn't [even if you couldn't know you shouldn't] or damned if you don't and are killed. [picture from CNN]
  
• Nuclear Control: F
  While focusing on a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty [SALT] with Russia that is more token than significant, Iran continues to move forward toward nuclear weapons capability. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration determines the best it can do is offer up assurances that we will not use nuclear weapons against an aggressor if they do not have nuclear weapons which is supposed to be an incentive for Iran? to give up its efforts to become a nuclear power... at the same time that Secretary of Defense, William Gates, admits that the Obama Administration has no real strategy developed for coping with a nuclear Iran [its not like Iran developing those weapons is a big surprise]. [picture unknown source]
  
• Energy: D
  While coming up with a resolution to consider offshore drilling for oil and natural gas [excluding some of the most promising offshore areas], the Obama Administration continue to focus on alternative energy and mandating smaller cars and trucks as its focus for becoming energy independent and "solving" a CO2 "problem" that is quickly being recognized as a non-existent problem. Meanwhile, moving forward on more new safe, dependable, and clean nuclear power plants has fallen into neglect as the Obama Administration continues to push nascent, inefficient, unreliable alternatives while concurrently trying to dismantle coal power which is the source of nearly half the nation's electricity. [chart from NY Times]
  
• Immigration: D
  It is difficult to grade the Obama Administration on anything positive it has done to manage the massive influx of illegal aliens into this country because it has done nothing really. Meanwhile, states such as Arizona and Texas are beginning to address the issue of defending the borders which should be one of the Obama Administration's primary responsibilities according to the Constitution. [picture unknown source]
  

Overall: a good, solid D and working on a D Minus.

My wife considers this grade inflation.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

Nuclear Weapons Or Obama: Which Endanger Us More?

SEARCH BLOG: NUCLEAR

The New York Times reports:

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

[Read full story]

Read that several times. So a massive attack on Washington, D.C. using nerve gas or biological weapons designed to kill thousands gets the 6-month troop build-up response? How about if we include New York City and Los Angeles? Okay, if Chicago gets hit, Obama will rethink his position.

Look at this [click to enlarge]:


Kim Jong Il is working in his self-interests. He uses the mere threat of nuclear weapons attack as a deterrent against those who might try to get rid of him from the outside so that he can focus on making those he needs for retaining power satisfied with what he can give them. And with nuclear weapons he can give them more income [from U.S. payoffs] and security [through fear that he will use his nuclear weapons].

If someone as inconsequential as Kim Jong Il has figured it out, you have to ask: "Is President Obama actually working in our self-interest or simply living out some perception-impaired fantasy about the world?" What, indeed, is the incentive to fear the U.S. if our leaders say our weapons are merely for show?

Do we want to use nuclear weapons? Definitely not. Do we place limits on our actions regardless of what some other party does? Yes, but stupidly so.

President Obama apparently feels the need, as Commander-In-Chief, of the world's approval rather than respect. His belief that we can simply talk those who oppose our self-interests into agreement worked really well in Iran. What makes him think that he can talk his way to restraining others of like mind with Iran?

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

Iran: Sanctions Smanctions

SEARCH BLOG:

The New York Times reports....

Iran’s Nuclear Plans Prompt New Calls for Sanctions

Left, Michel Euler/Associated Press; Right, Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, right, on Monday in Tehran. At left, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in Paris.

By ALAN COWELL and THOM SHANKER

Published: February 8, 2010

PARIS — Iran told the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency on Monday that it would begin enriching its stockpile of uranium for use in a medical reactor, prompting officials from the United States, France and Russia to call for stronger sanctions against Tehran.

Read more....

This may fall under the Iranian category of ... we don't give a rat's ass.

Should President Obama go to Iran, make a nice bow before Ahmadinejad, and talk about conciliation? He could even throw in a nasty word or two about Israel.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

U.S. Mystery Unit To Combat Nuclear Terrorism

SEARCH BLOG: MILITARY

From the Times Online [UK]:

The US army is training a crack unit to seal off and snatch back Pakistani nuclear weapons in the event that militants, possibly from inside the country’s security apparatus, get their hands on a nuclear device or materials that could make one.

The specialised unit would be charged with recovering the nuclear materials and securing them.

Read more....

They can't be Navy SEALS or Army Rangers.... Who's still left to send in against terrorists and then punish?
Fighting terrorism by making them eat SOS.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

Climate Versus Environment Versus Unions

SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING and ENVIRONMENT

An interesting dynamic is developing among traditional left-wing organizations. It seems that those who want to save the world through alternative energy are running into opposition by those who want to save the world by protecting the environment who are are running into opposition by those who want to protect their jobs.

• Union workers upstage N.J. environmental groups' campaign against planned Linden plant

By Brian T. Murray/The Star-Ledger

October 15, 2009, 7:36PM

LINDEN -- Rowdy union workers today upstaged a campaign kick-off by New Jersey environmental groups opposing a unique, coal-fueled electric plant proposed for the City of Linden that will capture its own carbon dioxide output and pipe it under the Atlantic Ocean.

Read more....

• Some Environmentalists Against Solar Power

Andy Kondrat

We like solar power, right? In the face of all this debate about coal and oil and gas and whatnot, we can look at solar power and find a solution, right? Clean, renewable technology that any lover of the environment can get behind, right? Wrong.Some environmentalists have started to fight back against solar power, especially in the Southern California deserts, where many solar projects are planned.

Read more....

• The Case Against Local Environmentalism

By EDWARD L. GLAESER

In case you missed it, a guest post from Edward L. Glaeser, an economics professor at Harvard, from the Economix blog:

Can environmentalism be bad for the environment?

In Massachusetts, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has led the fight against providing alternative energy with a wind farm off of Cape Cod. Greenpeace declares that “nuclear power is unsafe, uneconomical and unnecessary.” In Canada, the Sierra Club fights against the development of hydroelectric power, fearing “toxic mercury increases in fish.”

Read more....

Of course they are all against any kind of corporate profits and bonuses, so they still have that in common.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

A Problem With Wind Power

SEARCH BLOG: WIND

In a recent post critical of Al Gore and his hyperbole about wind turbine generated electricity, I hinted at issue of these generators actually having a parasitic relationship with the rest of the power grid.

You may be interested in the following: A Problem With Wind Power by Eris Rosenbloom and the subsection: Energy consumption in wind facilities.

Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†s

• yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
  
  
• blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
  
  
• lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
  
  
• heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power
  
  
• heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"
  
  
• oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
  
  
• hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
  
  
• thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
  
  
• magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
  
  
• using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours) -- it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§
  

It may be that each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation. If so, the plant as a whole -- which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually -- would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn't publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.

These articles are three years old, so there will be a lot of "yes, but" new technology, etc. Those same "yes, butters" will gladly point to 40-year old fossil fuel or nuclear plants and deride the technology employed therein.

The big difference is that new technologies have been deployed that fix 40-year old problems, but the problems of three years ago remain. It might be worthwhile having some real systemwide analysis for wind turbine electric power generation before following Al Gore's advice and installing the products in which he has investments and is hawking under the guise of the next energy answer.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

Costco And Al Gore

SEARCH BLOG: GLOBAL WARMING

First, I love Costco. My wife spends a fortune there. Great merchandise; great prices. So, I was more than a little peeved when the latest issue of The Costco Connection magazine showed up with this cover:

Mr. Gore, in my opinion, is probably the greatest snake oil salesman of all time and the fortune he has amassed since leaving office is a testament to his silver-tongued spiel and the gullibility of his followers. This flim-flam wouldn't be so offensive if his personal life style was consistent with his message. But, as reported in News Busters...

In 2007, to a sensational reception the TCPR noted that the Gore family burned through energy at an amazing rate saying, "Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh -- guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359."

Then he pushes his own investments in second-rate energy production while bad-mouthing the sources that actually work:

His statement that wind-generated electricity is competitive as a mainstream source is wrong on several counts. First, the percent of electricity generated from wind-power is minimal.

Year-to-date, coal-fired plants contributed 44.7 percent of the Nation’s electric power. Nuclear plants contributed 20.6 percent, while 22.3 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants. Of the 1.1 percent generated by petroleum-fired plants, petroleum liquids represented 0.7 percent, with the remainder from petroleum coke. Conventional hydroelectric power provided 7.4 percent of the total, while other renewables (biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining 3.7 percent of electric power (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), Year-to-Date through July, 2009

[source]

Wind-generated power is a portion of the 3.7% comprise of so-called renewables.

Secondly, what Mr. Gore conveniently neglects to mention are the significant government subsidies to get the generators purchased and installed, without which the generators would have lifetime negative payback.

Thirdly, he fails to mention the pesky fact that due to the erratic power generation of these windmills, the more traditional power plants must always be kept running to provide power to homes and businesses... and to keep the rotors of the windmills turning to prevent their shutdown [see "parasitic loads" page 3].

Meanwhile, Mr. Gore questions the viability of nuclear power which makes up fully 1/5 of the generated electricity in the U.S. and is expanding worldwide as an emissions-free source of power. Perhaps Mr. Gore should go to France and discuss his opinions with the French people and government. Certainly, the new generation of nuclear power plants will be better than the older one... most technology improves with time, but I'll take the reliability and environmental preservation of nuclear plants over the mess that wind generators are making... including killing birds and causing problems with many humans from the strobe effects.

Oh, and then there is that little problem of hooking up this wind turbine farms to the power grid.... And then there is the issue of "green jobs."

It seems the power of the windmill is more the power of a windbag.

Costco should stick to its formula for merchandising success and stay out of the quack science of politicians.

2012 IS GETTING CLOSER

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

Meaningless Nobel Prize

SEARCH BLOG: NOBEL

OSLO — The Nobel Committee announced in Oslo that it has awarded the annual peace prize to Barack Obama, just nine months into his presidency, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal. “He has created a new international climate,” the committee said.

Read more....

So, the president who ignored the growing Iranian threat of nuclear weapons and expanded the Afghanistan war without a clear strategy is awarded the same peace prize that Al Gore got for creating hysteria about CO2.

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.
George Orwell, "1984", first sentence

ADDENDUM

Opinion from The New Republic

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..

President Obama Not Listening To Sen. Obama

SEARCH BLOG: OBAMA

The Wall Street Journal had an interesting little tidbit:

Gates: Setting Afghan Withdrawal Date Would Be 'Strategic Mistake'

By JON HILSENRATH and YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates pushed back against calls by Congress for the administration to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan, as unease about the White House's handling of the war grows on Capitol Hill and among the public.

In two television interviews, Mr. Gates argued that the Afghan war was vital to U.S. national security. Laying out a timeline for removing American troops from Afghanistan would be "a strategic mistake" that could embolden al Qaeda and the Taliban, he said on CNN's "State of the Union."

CNN

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on CNN's 'State of the Union.'

Mr. Gates waded into the political debate over Afghanistan at a pivotal moment in the eight-year-old war. The Obama administration is conducting a broad review of its strategy for the conflict as it weighs a request from the top American commander in Kabul, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for up to 40,000 U.S. reinforcements. About 65,000 American troops are now in Afghanistan.

Read more....

Excuse me, but wasn't it the war strategy of Sen. Obama to set timetables for withdrawal. It shouldn't matter if it is Iraq or Afghanistan. Apparently, the Senator's philosophy of "let's all whine before it is time" doesn't come into play when he is in charge. It sure has sounded like President Obama was planning his own version of "Surge" for Afghanistan.

It's time to step up front and tell the world that "ready or not" we're leaving. That's how you run a war! That'll put the pressure on the Taliban to bow to public opinion. Maybe President Obama should use the same approach with nuclear weapons. We'll just disarm and that will put the pressure on Iran to bow to public opinion. Maybe he can get Iran's buddies in Russia to persuade them to go along.

Then he would truly be a great strategist and statesman! What's all that laughing coming from Iran?

• GO TO TOP OF BLOG
• GO TO BLOG'S COMPLETE ARCHIVE
  
• GO TO POST LABELS
  
• GO TO LIST OF OTHER BLOGGERS
  
• MY POSTS AT DETROIT NEWS AUTOS BLOG
  

..