I would like to stress the importance of nuclear energy. We need energy to drive innovations. We need energy to drive the economy. We simply need energy in order to reach our full potential as human beings.
1. Nuclear Energy is clean and safe.
There is currently only 70,000 tons of waste to deal with. Imagine that! I am being serious, because even though this sounds like a lot of waste, this pretty much makes up all of the waste that has ever been generated in the course of say 40 to 70 years of using it. Coal plants might burn that much coal in a month. There is definately more waste in coal waste than in nuclear by far. Also coal is like a big filter in the ground that catches toxic metals such as murcury and gallium. This makes it kind of hazardous.
2. Nuclear energy is abundant and limitless for at least a good billion years or so.
There is an unimaginably enormous amount of energy locked into nuclear isotopes. We can make these give us energy and keep doing it forever!
3. Nuclear waste can be recycled.
Now here is a recycling plan that makes a difference. I couldn't care less about recycling materials, unless they are very rare or valuable. The way I see it, the land fill is an opportunity to recycle later. Nuclear material can be recycled to give us our most valuable asset. Energy. This means that the 70,000 tons that was thought to be waste really is not waste, but an opportunity to recycle and obtain more energy.
I say that in order for something to have the greatest benefit there should be an inverse relationship between its value and its cost. As an example, water is the most valueable resource in the world if you've been without it for 2 days. But it has the greatest benefit to us because its cost is negligable. Energy should be the same way. Quality food as well... etc.
4. Cap and Trade is just a tax by any other name. There is a definite relationship in how much profit a corporation can make and how much they are going to charge for their services. All things being equal there will be a price set that will reflect all the input cost plus the profit margin. A carbon cap and trade will force the coporations to have a higher input cost and they will pass this on to us. There is no way around that. The only thing that will happen is higher prices and possibly a sqeeze on the profit margins of corporations as they find that they can not sell at quite the same amount they would have to raise prices in order to completely offset their carbon tax. Nuclear Energy is the solution to a zero carbon energy economy. And there is no limit to the amount of energy that can be produced. Solar and wind are limited in nature. Nuclear is 24/7 and produces energy all the time wether we are collecting it and using it or not.
5. We have all these spare nuclear weapons around. I would imagine that there is a highly refined stockpile ready to be all blown up. We could certainly borrow some of the material from there. After all what are we going to do with the nuclear material stockpile if we don't ever blow it up, god forbid we ever do. That material would be considered nuclear "waste" and is so highly refined that we would have to "dirty-it-up" a little in order to actually use it in a conventional nuclear power plant.
Nuclear material comes from nature. Ever thought about mixing it down and diluting it until it has a lower radiation level and then storing it maybe somewhere that it came from in the first place. Of course if we ever plan on recycling it that would just add an extra step to get it all back.
6. If we were to subsidize our own power we'd save a whole lot of money more than likely. I'm thinking trillions unless someone figures out how to keep making it more expensive. In reality nuclear power would be as simple as throwing some nuclear "logs" on the proverbial fire. I'm pretty sure that the first experiments were probably not far off as different enrichment levels were experimented. It could be practically free if we made no effort to put up any safeguards or use technology to get much better results. What keeps nuclear power expensive is regulation. The regulations that keep armed guard and massive facilities over top of this otherwise pretty simple powerplant. I am not saying that regulation is a bad thing. I am only saying that it is as expensive as we make it.
7. Nuclear Energy = Infinite Energy = Everything (quite literally). But as a practical example, Electrolosys on sea water produces Oxygen, Hydrogen and a few other things. Oxygen is nice for breathing and a lot of other good purposes. Hydrogen can power vehicles. Since we could make as much Hydrogen as we ever needed we now have all the transportation fuel we will ever need. This incudes the fuel to take us to the moon and mars, which is also based largely on Hydrogen. Burning hydrogen produces fresh water. There are many other necessities that can be generated from energy and electricity on which we could thrive.
8. Arguements that Nuclear Energy is somehow worse in mining that ore than coal mining are illogical. Mining Coal and Mining Nuclear ore are pretty much the same thing and there are many of the same heavy metal by-products. The major difference I see is that with nuclear power the bedding structure can be set so that it is self-maintaining and produces its own fuel. Mining would at that point be unnecessary. Let me reitterate that there would be NO MORE MINING! Only isolated reprocessing. Coal will be mined forever. Once coal is burned there are more byproducts to deal with. Tenessee recently had a wall collapse where thousands of tons of coal ash byproduct are stored. Carbon sequestration reduces the useable power from coal so that would ultimately increase the amount of coal that was burned with some being used just to store the byproduct of the rest.
9. There is an enormous amount of energy in nuclear material. One pound of enriched Uranium can produce as much as 2.2 MILLION pounds of coal. That is only in one cycle which last about 18 months. There are currently a little over 100 nuclear powerplants in the United States. Those few power plants produce nearly 20% of our electricity demand. Wouldn't that mean that 500 powerplants would produce 100% of our electricity demand in the United States. We could build more and export electricity while fully powering our country at whatever level we feel like. Not a level that has been limited by how much carbon is emitted.
Nuclear energy is not the demon that it is made out to be. I could go on forever about how one can use the enormous amount of energy that is available in Nuclear Energy. The "not in my backyard" slogan is misleading and outdated. There are far worse things in your backyard. I guarantee it! But, since we live in the days of sloganism I'll close with this. There are six billion reasons to choose nuclear energy. What's yours?
Related Links:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaclark/gGxtKp/commentary
The American people have been watching the US Auto industry closely for a number of months. America must have an Auto Industry. We are America for crying out loud. We buy more cars than anyone. But we must have industries that compete in every way from technology, safety, productivity to efficiency and cost.
It is a very hard time for many in the industry that have done all they can do to build the best cars industry has allowed them to build, but these folks are survivors and will overcome. They will lead the new American auto industry with the experience and continuous process improvement cultures that they know are critical to quality.
Our nation is at a crossroads. An eight lane crossroads at rush hour with train tracks to-boot! Now is the time for our government & manufacturing industries to manhatanize the change over away from foreign oil. We cannot just keep kicking it down the road. It cost way to much with each kick. Look at us now, the big three in danger of survival. High efeciency & electric cars should have been the norm for at least five to ten years, but they are not. Had they of been we would be looking at a very different picture. We cannot unscramble that egg, but we must take heed, learn from it and start anew. We must not squander our last chance. Yes, I say last chance. Because the path we are on is not sustainable for another 20+ years.
At this point I believe that it is in the best interest of the nation and the auto industry for GM & Chrysler to go through a pre-packaged bankruptcy, a protected bankruptcy that will let us start fresh with a clean cost effective slate. And what I will add is for this to take the highest of national priority and to make sure it happens right and quickly, so that GM & Chrysler can get back on track and head for better days.
This is the perfect storm for breaking the back of foreign oil dependency and for re-tooling industry over to USA natural gas and electric cars and trucks. The government can play a role in determining a DVEI (dollar value to energy independence.) There are cost factors like national security on dependent energy vs potential independent energy, current greenhouse cost vs more efficient and renewable alternatives. There are other factors as well. Bottom line, there is a dollar value to energy independence and it can be used to assist the nation in a changeover. Even if we are only talking a 5 to 10% change over, that would be the start, and would grow exponentially from there as the cost would also become more affordable.
What I envision is the government working with private industry like trucking companies, UPS, FED-EX, etc.. and companies like BP & Philips to add natural gas to existing stations. Converting existing engine components for tractor trailers and other transport vehicles is where the Auto industry comes in. This and new natural gas engine conversion kits. Re-tooling and building fuel tanks and pumping stations also. Industry would do this as they continue to move forward on advanced electric vehicles. This would also feed a host of different new jobs/demands nationwide.
Tax breaks based on DVEI can be used to leverage and incentivise transport & energy related industry to be a part of the solution and make the switch. In addition the federal government can lead the way by converting government transport vehicles to natural gas and electric.
What we cannot do is to continue to do what we have been doing for the last 20+ years, expecting that we can do it for 20 more. The end of that era is NOW. If it is through the baptism of bankruptcy that will free the US Auto industry to rise again then so be it! Americans are great people and we are intelligent people. We will buy the cars again! They will be better, and we know it. We know when there is sustainable change and we will not allow some false stigmas of bankruptcy to influence us without cause.
If industry turns around and does so in an unprecedented way, as we know they can, then Americans will do their part and step to the plate. Trust me, Americans want to buy American made products. We want to take care of our own, We've had enough. So lets get on with the business of turning our auto industry around and let's seize the opportunity to use it as a vehicle :) to save our nation from the destructive addiction of foreign oil.
This schedule is updated frequently, so check back often!
Cable news and right wing blogs are swarming with the revisionist history on the New Deal. Arm yourself against lies, spin and propaganda by reading info from a number of sources.
Here down a article about this topic. [Media Matters is a progressive media watchdog and fact checking organization which has received accolades from numerous sources (except the right wing media which often gets debunked by Media Matters).]
The link to digg it and for article: Conservatives Cherry-Pick 1930s Unemployment Figures
Summary: Columnists Mona Charen and George Will continued a trend among conservative media of responding to comparisons between the current economic situation and that of the 1930s and between Barack Obama and FDR by attacking the New Deal. In separate columns, both Charen and Will cherry-picked unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal did not reduce unemployment. But historians and progressive economists have noted that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except during the 1937-38 recession; further, Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman has said it was a reversal of New Deal policies, not a continuance of them, that contributed to rising unemployment in 1937 and 1938.
Yes we can! Best wishes, Steffen
http://changeforbetterworld.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-way-to-say-goodbye-to-neocons-bush.html
Formal Petition to Attorney General-Designate Eric Holder to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute any and all government officials who have participated in War Crimes.
You can Digg it: My_way to say GOODBYE to neocons, Bush and Cheney!
A picture from me to say goodbye from most bad president of US and all neocons.We can only hope many people will long enough remember. Bush had a lot bad gifts for the change! Let's take care the poor and normal people will not have to pay now too much after the rich made profit in good time!And what's with impeachment now?! What's with hidden knowledge of Sept. 11 2001?[ Maybe an explanation of picture: it's made like an "egg laying wool milk sow" a metaphorical-idiomatic term in Germany]
Yeah, and here you can see something new about neocons were bringing to us - for me to say: don't forgive Bush and neocons and there is still a lot to work of. We will and can do this too - Yes we can!I got now message too like "If anybody can clean up the mess bush left, it's President Obama." - Yes and Obama likes people helping still to do the work - help him! We were a big and strong movement and so people got knowledge back how strong people can be together! Whistleblower: Bush's NSA spied on EVERYONE (already 4255 Diggs) The NSA had access to ALL YOUR COMMUNICATIONS, regardless of who you were or whether or not you were communicating internationally.
At church this morning (Meet the Press). Yes I call it church, because it is where I go on Sunday morning to get informed. David Gregory did an outstanding job, Russert is smiling down on you :) So what did I get out of it?
I think that what was impressive was the level of consensus on much of what America is dealing with and what we must do to take advantage of this opportunity. In the second segment I find it refreshing to see people around a table with fundamentally different core beliefs wrangle politely and ad value to the conversation. I certainly hope that President elect Obama and Vice President elect Biden were at church/meet the Press this morning.
Who am I? I am middle class America. I went to buy my groceries at Walmart this morning, keeping an eye on my time so that I would not be late for church/Meet the Press. I got home and put the groceries away and made coffee, a Jimmie Dean breakfast bowl, toast and an orange juice with less than a minute for the beginning of church!
The first part of the show on Chicago politics is something that we Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of. Over and over all you hear is how someone is trying to screw or shakedown someone else about something or another. It is a cultural flaw that we need to eradicate, we are the United States of America not Mogadishu. But that will take lots of work and time.
So what did I get out of Meet the Press this morning with David Gregory? He was on message and in control. Great facilitating, he helped America today! His guest in the second round brought much to the American Sunday morning table.
Gov. Granholm was right in the fact that we need to keep an auto industry in America and she also pointed to the ties of cost to our failed health care policy. What I think is important here is that when we are comparing data and statistics in the US Auto industry to the Foreign Auto industry, we are comparing apples with apples and not apples with pineapples. She also thanked Bush for looking forward to helping the auto industry, but then when asked about Obama she praised Obama and slammed Bush for not being there for the last eight years. While that might have been true, I found it to be not in the spirit of "fixing it" and tainting the very praise to the president elect. Bridling the tongue is an art, one that I too have yet to master!
Gov Romney Also agreed and echoed America in saying that we do not want to be without an American Auto industry, but his approach is closer to what most of us believe. We have to KNOW, not believe, (there is a difference), that the money we provide as tax payers are solving the problems. That being said we need guarantees that the needed change WILL happen. He also pointed out that the President, BUSH you are still the president! And the current congress need to DO, not talk but DO. As they say on SNL "FITS IT" "JUST FITS IT" DO RIGHT NOW!!! What part of that phrase do they not under stand??? Is it the DO or the RIGHT NOW?
Eric Schmidt's comments work well with the others, He brings us back home to remind us that "YES WE CAN" and he tells us how and what. We need to do in Washington, what I did in Walmart this morning. Look for the two-fer. We need to start creating solutions that solve multiple problems at one time. Energy independence, Auto industry, Infrastructure, technology, healthcare, etc He is right the sky is the limits, but we have to DO IT.
Carly Fiorina's comments today also ad value as I am employed by one of those small businesses she speaks of. But what she really cracked the whip on was the banks that are not lending our money that we gave them to lend. Why aren't they lending to the auto industry? It is amazing, I guess we really are in this together, not surprising to our astronaut friends as they pear down at the blue an brown molten mud ball we call Earth.
Lee Scott (Walmart CEO) had some interesting thoughts. He reminds us that now is not a time to do what was discussed in the first segment of the show (self Interest ahead of National interest) but to come to the barn raising with your work boots on and ready to break a sweat! He knows where he came from and refuses to forget. That alone serves America. It is when we are self indulgent and forget the struggles that gave us health & wealth that we drive off into the ditch. America we have driven off into the ditch, and while you may not have been driving this bus you are on this bus and it will take everyone getting off of this bus to help and get it out of the ditch. We can change the driver, and we have! But this is the only bus we have! BUS, Hmmmmm, B.U.S. Beautiful United States!
So, that is what I got out of church/Meet the Press today!
Answer to Bail out request: NO
Why: Do not trust and believe they can fix it, (history.) They will not change ENOUGH.
Alternative Solution: Pre-Packaged Bankruptcy with Government help (guarantee) after and during the Bankruptcy restructuring.
Argument: People will not buy a car from a company that goes into bankruptcy.
Rebuttal: People are not buying the cars right now and People will still not trust them after a bail-out/crack fix. On the contrary, People will trust more that the big 3 will still be around after the prescribed bankruptcy that has government guarantees for a a few years, sorta like the banks with FDIC but not permanantly. And people will also know that the change is real and to the core and not just another fix on crack.
DO NOT GIVE MY TAX DOLLARS IN A BAIL OUT PRE BANKRUPTCY To BIG 3.
Energy Efficiency is a Growth Industry in a Slow Economy
This story/link above is way cool, there are so many opportunities to reduce energy use and it's cost! I know that companies all over the US have been going "LEAN" and reducing unnecessary steps in their processes with initiatives like Six Sigma & Lean manufacturing (process improvement cultures.) In turn reducing manufacturing cost and Inventory cost and even finding markets for manufacturing by-products/waste.
I wonder how many of them even have a clue as to what they are loosing dollar wise in unnecessary energy consumption and a lack of a coherent energy management strategy? This is the sort of thing that can and should be done NOW by Americans everywhere, and does not need our President Elect or Congress to pass anything. It's about the American people taking charge and doing what is smart and saves/makes money!
What is fun to do with actual savings from something like this is to figure out how much your business has to do in sales dollars to produce the equivalent in net profit! So let's say you save $1,000.00 a year by implementing energy efficiency and let's say you sell widgets for $10.00 each and at the end of all your bills your company net profit is 10%. Your energy savings dollars are like selling an extra 1000 of your widgets minus the entire process & time, although you will have some process and time in the initial implementation. But then the next year/s you don't! Unless you improve even greater!
by Marcel F. WilliamsFossil fuels are predominantly responsible for putting excess carbon dioxide and methane intothe Earth's atmosphere, greenhouse gases that are melting our polar ice caps, raising global sea levels, and causing more extreme climate conditions around the world. The coal and natural gas power industry has looked looked towards future technologies for the on site capture of flu gas in order to recover and sequester carbon dioxide. However, there is no cost effective technology for capturing the CO2 from the mobile producers of carbon dioxide: automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and sea craft.But there are new technologies that are rapidly being developed that may eventually divorce carbon dioxide polluting sources of energy from the need for on site capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. These devices are sometimes referred to as mechanical trees. But what they do is to simply extract and recover carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And these future technologies appear to be far more efficient at extracting CO2 from the air than the plant life on our planet.Some argue that these carbon dioxide from air extracting technologies could be the saviors of the fossil fuel industry. Ironically, such future technologies could also eventually lead to the complete extinction of fossil use on this planet if the CO2 taken from the atmosphere is used in combination with hydrogen from water to produce hydrocarbon fuels such as: gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether.HydrogenBecause the combustion of hydrogen produces only energy and water, hydrogen via the electrolysis of water through hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar has often been proposed as a replacement for hydrocarbon transportation fuels. Liquid hydrogen fuel has been used in US space craft since the days of the Apollo Moon program. And liquid hydrogen has also been frequently proposed for future generation subsonic and hypersonic airliners and aircraft. Hydrogen fueled buses now transport commuters in many urban areas in the US. And hydrogen automobiles have been demonstrated by many automobile companies around the world .However, hydrogen automobiles have a substantially shorter range than hydrocarbon fueled vehicles and are a lot less efficient than electric vehicles. Refueling hydrogen vehicles also takes much longer than refueling with gasoline, ethanol, or methanol. Because of the hydrogen embrittlement of metals like steel, hydrogen pipelines are more expensive to maintain than natural gas and oil pipelines. Aircraft, seacraft and ground vehicles, and the infrastructure associated with these vehicles, would also have to be completely replaced if we completely replaced our fuel economy with hydrogen.Hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and hydrogenAlternatively, there are several demonstrated methods for synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels by utilizing carbon dioxide in combination with hydrogen which could allow a country to avoid any major overhaul in its transportation energy infrastructure.Chemist have known how to produce methanol from hydrogen and carbon dioxide for more than 80 years:CO2 + 3H2 → CH3OH (methanol) + H2OMethanol is mostly used as a feedstock for making other chemicals. But methanol can be converted into dimethyl ether (DME), a fuel that can be effectively used in diesel engines equipped with new fuel injection systems. The fact that dimethyl ether produces no black smoke, soot, or sulfur dioxide is an clean advantage it has over diesel fuel.Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline via the Mobil Oil methanol to gasoline (MTG) process. Back in the 1980's, the New Zealand government produced 600,000 tonnes of gasoline a year from methanol derived from natural gas using the MTG process.Methane gas can also be synthesized from hydrogen and carbon dioxide:CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 (methane) + 2H2OAnd methane can also be converted into diesel and jet fuels via Fischer-Tropsch and hydrocracking processes.Mechanical extraction of atmospheric CO2Plants capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while utilizing sunlight to convert the CO2 into starch. During photosynthesis, trees, for instance, convert carbon dioxide and water into starche molecules and oxygen through a series of oxidation and reduction reactions:6 CO2 + 6 H2O + sunlight ---> C6H12O6 + 6 O2Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre (4047 square meters) of biomass a year. One tonne of dried tree consist of 0.45 tonnes of carbon which would translate into the extraction of 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually extracted from the atmosphere. That's 33 tonnes of CO2 per acre extracted on an annual basis.Even though the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a meager 0.04 per cent, companies like GRT (Global Research Technologies) in Arizona and Canadian researchers at the University of Calgary have already built machines that can extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far more efficiently than any tree or any other source of biomass. GRT claims that its carbon dioxide air extraction system is a thousand times more efficient than a tree of equal size.
GRT CO2 absorbent material The University of Calgary team has shown that they could capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon dioxide. Their carbon dioxide from air extraction tower was able to capture the equivalent of about 20 tonnes per year of CO2 on just one single square meter of air scrubbing material. Astonishingly, this suggest that even the most conservative estimates would allow these CO2 extracting machines to produce more than 80 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide per acre annually.
University of Calgary carbon dioxide extraction machine Because of the need for cheap electricity for hydrogen production, only nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would be currently viable for hydrocarbon fuel production utilizing carbon dioxide from air extraction technologies. Hydroelectric facilities currently produce electricity at 0 .85 cents per kwh while electricity from nuclear facilities currently cost 1.68 cents per kwh. Wind and solar thermal electricity, however, is much more expensive and ranges from over 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents per kwh.At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, F. Jeffrey Martin and Williams L. Kubic, Jr. have developed the Green Freedom concept for using the cooling towers of nuclear reactors to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for the production of gasoline and methanol.
They argue that a 1 GWe power plant using their Green Freedom method could produce 18,000-bbl/day of gasoline or 5000 tonnes a day of methanol.Carbon neutral hydrocarbon synfuel production at nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would not only allow such power facilities to produce transportation fuels and industrial chemicals, they would also allow them to pump methanol and oxygen up to 80 kilometers away to high efficiency power plants for the production of peak-load and back-up-load electricity and commercial waste heat. Nuclear power plants could therefore not only produce base-load electricity but could also supply methanol fuel to replace greenhouse polluting natural gas power plants which are used for daytime peak-load energy and back-up energy for wind and solar power plants.In 2006, the US consumed nearly 21 million bbl/day of petroleum for transportation fuel and industrial chemical use. If we assumed that nuclear power plants replaced all of the petroleum used in the US in 2006, that would roughly require more than a thousand new 1Gwe nuclear reactors, over 1000 GWe of electrical capacity. Existing nuclear sites that already have nuclear reactors could probably on add an additional 200 to 300 Gwe of capacity. However, if one large centralized nuplex (nuclear park) with about 30GWe of average electrical capacity were set up in every state in the union, then that could add an additional 1500 GWe of electrical capacity, more than enough to replace all of our petroleum needs today and probably our needs 30 years from now.If the new Obama administration is going to invest substantial R&D money into new energy technologies, I would strongly suggest investing in the fast tracking of these carbon dioxide extraction from air technologies that could revolution synfuel production by helping to achieve US independence from the petroleum fuel economy while protecting the global environment from the dangers of global warming and climate change.Links and References1. Green Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November 2007 F.J. Martin and WL Kubic, 2. GRT (Global Research Technologies, LLC)3. Giant Carbon dioxide Vacuums4. Snatching Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere5. CO2 capture from air6. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved:7. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company, (2007) Earth Institute News Archive, 04/24/078. Carbon capture and storage:9. Researchers Scramble to Create CO2-Busting Technologies:10. CO2 capture from ambient air: a feasibility assessment:11. Carbon Capture and Storage A False Solution12. The Case for Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air13. Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air14. K. Schultz, L. Bogart, G. Besenbruch, L. Brown, R. Buckingham, M. Campbell, B. Russ, and B. Wong HYDROGEN AND SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBON FUELS – A NATURAL SYNERGY General Atomics Poster15. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany
I don't completely buy the notion that if GM goes into Bank-O that they will not be able to sell cars. First off what are they comparing this notion/scare tactic to. Are people going to be likely to buy their cars if we throw bail out money to them? I would not. If you have a friend on crack and he wants help do you give him more money and ask him to promise not to buy crack or do you drive him down to the rehab/Bank-O? After which scenario would you be more likely to trust him with your life, after he completes rehab or while he is trying to fight an addiction that is bigger than him by his own means and your money.
At this point I like most Americans believe that the answer is a "Pre-Packaged Bankruptcy Plan" that will kick out those that are not part of the solution but rather the problem and really protect the auto workers with a sustained conversion in US manufacturing.
At the same time I think that the American people need to remember the opinions and stances of our elected officials concerning this matter, because it will be our responsibility to determine if they are competent enough to retain their status as their terms end and new elections come about in the years to come.
I put together some ideas for a plan to revitilize the 3 million jobs that will be lost when the big 3 bite the dust. While my plan may not be the end all, it might provide some ideas to move forward in a productive way. What the CEO's need to read is the very book they push down the ladder "Who moved my cheese." In the book it clearly points out that sometimes you just have to change, and change to new and strange ventures, strange because they are not familliar, but serve the need and maybe even better than the previous!
Now, I have a plan.
The big three go into Bank-O with the Gov right there over the process, ready to implement the program below:
1. A restructuring that immediately starts conversion to Natural Gas for heavy equip. City Buses, trucks, Big rigs and UPS trucks.
2. They also develop the pumping stations and conversions for existing vehicles
3. advance the design and build of High efficiency Hybrids, Hydrogen and full electric cars
4. Give tax credits to people and companies that convert to natural gas, i.e. UPS, Roadway, City Buses, Gas Stations, and all those that convert.
5. Where does the money come from? Determine the national security value of what it is worth to America in converting to Natural Gas via the percentage of change over and instead of just giving the money to the Car companies, use some of these moneys/tax credits to expedite the change in those that participate and complete the cycle.
6. Conduct the changes to the sectors that will allow for the quickest implementation, i.e. like trucking companies and truck stops, UPS, Municipalities.
I do not support the bail-out of the big 3 in the current form. There has to be a what I call a "Come to Jesus Meeting." Meaning the root causes MUST be dealt with and solved in any bail-out that involves my money.
What I expect is: 1. The Union must get to the basics. The basics means getting down to the bare bones on benefits and labor cost that are comparable to Non-Union American plants.
2. The management must have a "Manhattanized" restructuring/retooling to make electric, natural gas, hydrogen, and hybrid cars and their support systems, i.e. fuel pumping and recharging systems, with a signed commitment/law to push extremely hard away from building gasoline run cars by 5 years. Yes 5 years, NO B.S.
We Need a real plan before we give them any tax payer money. We need to tell them to produce a serious turnaround plan that drives us to energy independence or they can go into Bank-O and we will work with the Japanese and others on investing more in the US to fill the Vacuum by building the cars, trucks and equipment that we will need to become energy independent.
Toyota is the business model for the auto industry, in the US & abroad. The Big 3 and unions refuse to adapt to "the lean/sigma culture" completley Yes, they have implemented the lean philosophy at work, but they don't buy it, they do it because they have to. They don't believe in it like the Japanese do, and that is why they have failed and are failing, that and the weight the unions have placed around their neck concerning pay & benefits. And unless they are willing to make the complete turn around (Complete Restructuring Baptism) then they can go to the "Bank-O Baptism" and not waste my tax payer money that we do not have.
next post in my main blog about "Change for better world" - here i collected some movies from this day and shortly before.
(And i saved it to hard disc too. If some original will not be longer responsible in YouTube i will bring it new.)
Please, ckick this link to see the movies:
The change - Obama Acceptance Speech - Change is come to America
[But of course - it's just beginning with the change, there is a lot to do. Please stay in touch, however we do that, through these groups or some other way. ]
NEW PAPYRUS
The online magazine of science, technology, socioeconomics, and politics
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/
Monday, October 20, 2008
Natural Radiation
by Marcel F. WilliamsHumans exist on a planet and within a universe that is naturally radioactive. In fact, humans and all other plant and animal species that live and breed on Earth are also inherently radioactive.Since the birth of the cosmos, the earth has been subjected to an endless hailstorm of cosmic radiation. These potentially deleterious ionizing particles consist of highly accelerated protons, electrons, and neutrons originating mostly from other stars in our galaxy.Our planet of evolutionary origin is also radioactive due to naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth's crust such as: potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, and rubidinum-87, and radium-226. In fact, the radioactive decay from uranium, thorium, and potassium may be responsible for 45 to 90% of the earth's internal heat source which is the source of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain building, hot springs, and continental drift.On average, humans receive 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of cosmic radiation. People also receive about 0.5 mSv (50 millirems) of terrestrial radiation. We also inhale about 1.2 mSV (120 millirems) of radiation from radon gas annually.The human species is also internally radioactive due to the potassium in our bones which exposes our tissues to 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of ionizing radiation. So being in constant proximity to other human beings increases one's exposure to ionizing radiation.So if you lived with at least one other person in your house, you would receive 0.4 (40 millirems). That's more than ten times as much radiation as you would receive by living near a nuclear facility. If you lived in California and moved to Colorado, you would receive 45 times as much ionizing radiation as you would living next to a nuclear power facility.Ionizing Radiation Levels (annual):0.39 (mSv) Annual human internal radiation due to radioactive potassium0.35 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Louisiana1.20 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Colorado0.30 mSv Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of Texas1.15 mSV Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of South Dakota0.07 mSv Annual radiation exposure to while living in a stone, brick, or concrete building0.03 mSv Annual radiation exposure while living near the gate of a nuclear power plant0.01 Annual USA dose from nuclear fuel and nuclear power plants1.15 mSv Annual radiation exposure while working at a nuclear power plant2.0 mSv Annual human internal radiation due to radon1.0 mSv Annual Limit of dose from all DOE facilities to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker5.0 mSv Annual USA NRC limit for visitorsIonizing Radiation Levels (acute):0.o5 mSV One round-trip to Paris-New York0.46 mSv off-site exposure to the Three Mile Island core meltdown accident2.2 mSv Average dose from upper gastrointestinal diagnostic X-ray series50 mSv Lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults100 mSv USA EPA acute dose level estimated to increase cancer risk 0.8%500-1000 mSv Low-level radiation sickness due to short-term exposurePersons working at a nuclear facility are normally exposed to 1.15 mSv (115 millirems) annually. This would be the equivalent of living in the state of Ohio where Americans there are exposed to an equivalent amount of cosmic and terrestrial radiation and below that of states like Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where one receives a lot more background radiation.If you lived near the gate of a nuclear reactor and never left the house, you would be exposed to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation annually from that nuclear facility. However, you would receive 0.07 mSv (7 millirems) of radiation if you were living in a stone, brick, or concrete building. So you would receive more radiation from your house than from living near the gate of a nuclear facility.But what about a nuclear meltdown?Thanks to the fact that US reactors are housed in huge protective containment structures, the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island exposed nearby residents to only 0.46 mSv of acute radiation. That's nearly five times lower than receiving a gastrointestinal medical X-Ray and more than 100 times below the level of cancer causing radiation. But the new generation of nuclear reactors such as the AP1000 and GE's ESBWR have core damage frequencies at least 100 to 1000 times lower than current reactors such as the LWR at Three Mile Island. But, again, even if a meltdown did occur, the public would be protected by the containment structures which are also designed to withstand an impact from a jet plane.Americans are exposed to natural radiation from cosmic and terrestrial radiation ranging from as low as 0.75 mSv (75 millirems) to as high as 2.25 mSv (225 millirems). And Americans are exposed to an additional 2.0 mSv (200 millirems) of radon gas on average. Yet living near the gate of nuclear power facility would only expose them to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation. And even consistent contact with a family member would expose you to another 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of radiation annually. So the idea that a dramatic increase in nuclear power would expose humans to a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation is clearly not supported by the scientific evidence.References and Links1. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany2. Ionizing radiation (Wikipedia)3. Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor4. Martin D. Ecker, and Norton J. Bramesco (1981) Radiation: All you need t know about to stop worrying...or to start, Vintage Books, New York5. Radiation and Life Posted by Marcel F. Williams at 12:53 AM 0 comments:
Deregulation - wars - bank crisis - movie Bush without words
To look the movie you must go to my blog. Unfortunately the situation can still change to be more terrible and so movie is not fun like could be.
(If you have a chance give a Digg please.)
by Marcel F. WilliamsOne frequent argument against the expansion of commercial nuclear power is the the claim that our planet is simply running out of the nuclear material to power the world's nuclear reactors. So any future expansion of the commercial nuclear power industry would simply be out of the question.Uranium oreNuclear power produces approximately 20% of the electricity in the US and represents approximately 6% of the world's energy consumption. Uranium currently sells at below $35 per kilogram on the world market. But it is estimated that there are approximately 5.5 million tonnes of proven uranium reserves at a cost below $130 per kilogram. With the resurgence of nuclear power, however, it is estimated that the exploration for new uranium sources would increase total reserves to more than 16 million tonnes. The current world demand for uranium is 65,000 tonnes per year. So there should be enough uranium to supply current global nuclear power facilities for 246 years.Countries with the most abundant uranium suppliesBut if nuclear power were required to supply the world's total energy needs, 1.1 million tonnes of uranium would be required annually. So these terrestrial uranium reserves could only power our planet for less than 15 years. And even reprocessing spent fuel would only extend the nuclear fuel supplies to no more than 20 years.However, there are alternatives to terrestrial uranium.The world's oceans contain more than 4 billion tonnes of uranium in seawater. That's enough to power our entire planet for more than 3600 years or over 5000 years if spent fuel is also utilized. Japanese uranium from seawater demonstration projects estimate that marine uranium could be extracted at a cost of $135 to $250 per kilogram. Current world uranium prices are less than $35 per kilogram but expected to rise as uranium demand rises as new power plants are built around the world. But since uranium fuel only represents about 5% of the total cost of the energy produce by a fission power plant, that would only increase the total cost of energy via nuclear power by 14 to 31 percent which would still make the cost of nuclear electricity significantly lower than coal and natural gas. New laser uranium enrichment techniques, however, could dramatically lower total fuel cost which could, in theory, wipe out the increase in cost of using seawater uranium since enrichment represents 30% of the cost of nuclear fuel.Yellow cake extracted from seawater
So even if our future global society used three times as much energy as we use today, marine uranium and spent fuel could provide more than 1600 years of energy. Of course the contribution of renewable energy systems (hydroelectric, wind, solar, and biomass) could stretch uranium supplies even longer.But even without marine uranium, breeder technologies could power our global society at three times the current level for 700 years using terrestrial uranium. Nuclear breeding technologies such as fast neutron reactors or ADS accelerator reactors could increase fuel supplies by a factor of 140 since fissile uranium 235 only represents about 0.7% of natural uranium. In light water reactors (LWR), approximately 70% of the uranium 235 is converted into energy while another third comes from the conversion of plutonium into energy which is created as a by product of the neutron irradiation of uranium 238. Breeder technologies could give the world a 500,000 year supply of nuclear power or a 166,000 year supply at three times current energy use levels. However, the oceans are constantly being replenished with uranium from the worlds oceans, depositing over 32,000 tonnes of uranium annually. Since breeder technologies would only require less than 24,000 tonnes of uranium annually, marine uranium could power our entire society at three times the current level essentially-- forever!Thorium is another alternative to terrestrial uranium. There is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is terrestrial uranium 238. Neutron bombardment within a reactor can convert fertile thorium 332 into fissile uranium 233. And there is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is uranium 238. So terrestrial nuclear fuel sources could power our global society at three times the current level for approximately 2800 years.A CANDU heavy water reactor could have an 80% conversion rate if it utilized fissile uranium or plutonium inside of a thorium blanket. A modified CANDU heavy water reactor that uses thorium fuel enriched with fissile uranium 235, plutonium 239, or uranium 233 can produce as much fissile fuel as it utilizes. An ADS accelerator reactor could also breed uranium 233 from thorium. For every kilogram of plutonium burned in a thorium breeder, approximately 2.73 kilograms of uranium 233 could be produced, more than 8o% of a reactors total fissile fuel requirements. Combined with the 30% of reprocessed uranium 235 from spent fuel, an ADS could supply all of a reactors fuel needs through uranium 238 and thorium 232. However, it might by easier and cheaper just to gradually replace third generation reactors with thorium and uranium burning ADS reactors.Japanese companies currently lead the world in uranium extraction from sea water technology. But, in my opinion, the next US administration should set the goal for the commercial extraction of uranium from sea water within 10 years time. The US should also set the goal of having a functioning full scale ADS accelerator thorium breeder online within a decade with the goal of having commercial ADS reactors online within 20 years time. The same goal should be set by the Canadian government for the CANDU thorium breeder reactor.Such policies should insure a smooth transition from our current terrestrial uranium, third generation, nuclear economy to a more diverse nuclear economy that includes current reactor technology, fast neutron reactors and ADS breeder reactors along with a more diverse fuel supply that includes terrestrial uranium, uranium from seawater, and thorium.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/10/fueling-our-nuclear-future.html
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Federal support for non-carbon dioxide polluting energy technologies
by Marcel F. Williams
Management Information Services, Inc. of Washington D.C. has recently come out with a report that indicates that most of the US tax subsidies and R&D for the energy industry from 1950 to 2006 has gone to the fossil fuel industry. The oil industry led the way with 335 billion dollars in Federal Energy incentives. The natural gas industry was second with over 100 billion dollars in federal energy incentives. Coal was third with 94 billion dollars. So the greenhouse gas polluting fossil fuel industries have received over 529 billion dollars in Federal energy incentives from 1950 to 2006.
Amongst renewable energy technologies, hydroelectric power has received 80 billion in federal energy incentives, wind and solar has received 45 billion in federal energy incentives, and geothermal has received 7 billion in federal energy incentives. So the amount of federal energy incentives for renewable energy was 132 billion between 1950 and 2006.
Nuclear energy has received 65 billion in federal energy incentives. However, less than 6 billion dollars of federal energy incentives have been provided for light water reactors in the US which are the only nuclear power facilities that produce commercial electricity in the US. The rest has been for R&D for breeder reactors and other reactor types that have never gone on line commercially in the US.
While nuclear energy has received less than half the federal energy incentives of renewable energy systems, it currently produces nearly 20 % of electricity in the US while renewable energy systems produce less than 9% of US electricity. Solar, Wind, and Geothermal energy has been provided with 52 billion in federal energy incentives, yet , combined, they provide only 1.1% of US electricity.
So it is clear that amongst the federal energy incentives for non-carbon dioxide polluting technologies, nuclear power has produced substantially more electrical energy than renewable systems for far less money. And this is especially true when it comes to wind, solar, and geothermal technologies which currently produce nearly 20 times less electricity than nuclear power.
References and Links
1. Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development September 2008By Management Information Services, Inc. Washington, D.C.
http://www.nei.org/filefolder/Bezdek_Report.pdf
2. Which Energy Industry Gets the Biggest Subsidies?
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/green_business/archives/2008/09/which_energy_in.html
3. Support for nuclear dwarfed by that for fossil fuels A New Papyrus Publication
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-US_government_spending_on_nuclear_dwarfed_by_fossil_fuels-2509085.html
