Well, no one except that idiot David Brooks. Obama doesn’t like oil, natural gas, coal, or nuclear power. He likes solar, wind, and probably pig turds a la Mad Max in Thunderdome (although he probably won’t admit that so as not to offend the Islamists, and we also couldn’t build any of those facilities in Nantucket).

I’ll grant I’m not a particularly big fan of Yucca mountain myself even though I don’t live in the state. By my reckoning, there are no places that are sufficiently geologically stable to store the stuff without needing to be concerned about having to dig it up again to move it. Once upon a time I liked the idea of shooting it into space, but the way NASA’s been loosing rockets lately, that doesn’t seem reasonable either. But I also recognize that there are no better proposals for what to do with it. The truly sane thing to do would either be figure out how to dilute the stuff or re-use it in other nuclear reactors. But the fear mongering over radiation has precluded those possibilities.

When we have brown out next summer because we don’t have enough Nuclear Plants producing electricy and people die because they can’t run their air conditioners obama and his political counter part should be held liable for any deaths.
This avoiding building nuclear plants and now wanting to put cap and trade in to hit the coal fired electric plants will only jeapordize elederly people.
In Arizona in the Summer time I would guess the electric bill for air conditioners probably run about $400/ month. With obama cap and trade just double that. How many people can afford $800/month. How many will have to die before obama and the politicans get their heads out of their geisters.
Wind power is not dependable. A Simple question. How many time when it 100 degrees or more do you have wind speed capable of running the windmills.
There is a reason the ranchers was so glad to have dependable electricity to pump water for them and their livestock. How many people have to die before obama, the politicans and the eco-greenies before we start building nuclear power plants.
May God Bless our America and not the on obama wants.

What we are currently witnessing is the Obama Admin. and the Dems seriously self-destructing.

Go, Barry, baby! Go!!

It amazes me that these guy are so self-absorbed and arrogant that they can’t see what a HUGE fall they’re setting themselves up for! Do they really think that they can government-mandate massively higher energy (and food!) costs, and the electorate will just roll over and take it?!

This kind of self-delusion is nothing short of breathtaking!

I’m starting to get into it! These guys are a laugh a minute!
My predictions of their polls tanking by July may be overly pessimistic by 3-6 months!!

Obama may end up being one of the most hated men in American history by Christmas!

And once people despise you that much, they tune you out, and never pay attention to you again. Just ask George Bush.

that take too long to get far enough along to be usable.
Yucca Mountain has been in the works for a heck of a long time, with billions of dollars ‘invested’.
And now, after several President’s and Congresses, the Obama Administration has the power to just turn all that time, money and ‘investment’ to waste?
While offering no solution to what we as a Nation are going to do with the existing waste materials?
Or do we wait for the Nuke Waste Czar to be appointed and the Commission he/she’ll lead to “study” the problem?
More and more this inexperienced President is proving that his answer to everything is to appoint a ‘study’ group.
That’s not leadership, it’s decision avoidance.

That’s his right of course. He might be unsettled to know that I don’t own any clothing made of help. And that’s my right. But these guys are the truest of the true believers. They really do think that we must shift the U.S. to a solar and wind powered nation. They are fanatics.

We already had:

1) The importance of protecting the sanctity of the Constitution. (E.g., Dems trying to give DC a voting representative even though the Constitution says you can’t)
2) The importance of the vote (re. ACORN and Card Check)
3) The need to defend capitalism from Obamanomics

Now we can add:

4) A sane national energy program.

All of these comprise a good platform for 2010. A new Contract for America, if you will.

Food for thought…

Talking to a windmill producer of several years, the problem with windmill generators is that besides the reliability issue, they can only be used at certain wind speeds, and most types actually consume power when they aren’t generating it in order to maintain functionality. Thing is, unlike a coal, nuclear, hydro, or petro plant you can’t really turn the wind speed up or down to generate more or less power. Electrical demand fluctuates depending on what people have turned on in homes and businesses. So a windmill needs a backup source that can cover when the wind isn’t producing, and scale back when wind is producing too much. So basically, every windmill needs something else that can produce twice as much as the windmill on the grid in order to compensate either positively or negatively.

On the plus side, some researchers in Arizona have managed to produce solar panels for about one dollar per watt. This brings them into the realm of affordable energy generation for the first time in the 60+ years they’ve been around. They still don’t really compare with the capacity of nuclear in any serious fashion, though.

This whole process of making energy less plentiful and more expensive really seems to be exactly opposite of what the Administration keeps saying, doesn’t it?

I read an article in the WSJ this evening about the CEO of Duke Energy whining that he was duped on Cap & Tax. I wrote a letter to the editor in response advising him to enclose a summary and impact statement of Cap & Tax in the utility bill of every single one of Duke’s customers. The utilities need to understand that their biggest allies in the fight against this massive tax increase are their own customers. Most people are blissfully unaware of the freight train bearing down on them and when it hits them they will want to blame their utility. Duke, et al, need to get out in front of this issue. I’m really tired of corporate America not taking out the big guns and fighting back against government.

From my blog:

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few years about “alternative” energy, which, in most cases means wind and solar as alternatives to coal, natural gas, and nuclear. The problems with wind and solar are well known to anyone with thirty minutes to spare to do a modicum of research. Unfortunately, far too many Americans are too intellectually lazy to become informed and have outsourced their thinking to radical, agenda driven environmentalists and their enablers in media, academia, and politics. They have substituted saving the earth platitudes for real world analysis of even the basics of our available energy sources.
Below is a simple analysis of solar energy that I hope even the most stubborn and ignorant Liberal can understand. I will follow up this post with one on wind energy.
According to the New American the maximum, which is far more than what is actually recoverable, amount of solar power available per acre in Albuquerque, a region of the country blessed with a lot of sunshine, is 970 kW/acre.
The largest nuclear power plant in the is the Palo Verde plant near Phoenix, AZ.
Although the entire Palo Verde facility occupies 4,000 acres, the reactor buildings, cooling towers, cooling ponds, and support facilities only cover approximately 500 acres. Palo Verde produces 3.2 GW from its three reactors that run 24/7 and only shut down for maintenance and periodic refueling.Now, to get that same 3.2 GW from a solar array operating at 100% efficiency (remember, this is a physical impossibility) the solar plant would require a little less than the same 4,000 acres, ~3,300. This sounds like a great deal but in reality the physical maximum efficiency of modern solar cells only allows a conversion rate of about 10%. The problem of maximizing power from sunlight has been known for at least 30 years, and is primarily one of physical limitations, not engineering technology.” So this 3,300 acres in reality would require 33,000 acres to produce the same 3.2 GW as a nuclear power plant. That also assumes the entire 33,000 acres is covered by solar arrays, which, again is impossible. There needs to be spacing for panel movement, personnel and vehicle traffic, and support facilities. So lets conservatively say that to generate 3.2 GW during the peak sunshine hours would require 35,000 acres. That’s a lot of acreage for a plant that would only be able to produce electricity for 8-10 hours on a good sunny summer day. What then to do at night when the sun isn’t shining or in the winter months where the available hours falls significantly? What are the options for areas of the country that don’t have the available number of sunny days Albuquerque has? What options are available for the vast majority of the country that doesn’t have land for solar farms? What are the environmental impacts to wildlife and plant species of tens of thousands of acres being hidden from the sun under vast arrays of solar panels? Due to the area required, the inefficiency, and limited availability of solar energy, solar energy can never be more than a supplement to more traditional and reliable sources of energy.

is that the head of my nuclear engineering is a loyal Democrat. I am willing to bet anything that this will not change his mind.

Doesn’t Obama do any research. For this effort he gets an F.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.cfm

Carbon-capping legislation and recent studies[1] that conclude that a massive build-up of nuclear power is needed to minimize the negative economic impact of CO2 caps have spurred several high-profile articles on the costs of nuclear energy.[2] One such article notes that estimated construction costs for nuclear power plants and the overall costs of nuclear power have increased significantly since 2000 and espouses wind power, solar power, and energy efficiency as alternatives to new nuclear plants……

……To argue that nuclear power is not viable based on cost alone while ignoring the many problems, including costs, that are associated with wind, solar, and efficiency measures is to present an inaccurate picture.

Wind and Solar Have Problems Too

Wind and solar power do have a role in America’s energy mix, but those technologies alone are not ready or able to power the United States. Despite efforts to portray these sources as viable alternatives to nuclear power, they have their own problems. They are expensive, intermittent, and inappropriate for broad swaths of the United States. For example, wind turbines are virtually useless in the Southeast, where there is little wind. Even environmental activists are beginning to oppose wind projects because they kill birds, despoil landscapes, and ruin scenic views.

First, wind is intermittent, producing electricity only about a third of the time. Second, the life expectancy of windmills is projected to be 20 years.[5] Nuclear power plants produce power for up to 80 years. This must be taken into account when considering costs.

The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy is important to the overall economics of energy and how these renewable sources relate to nuclear power. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant, lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed.[8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all…….

The Market Should Decide

Government has no business making any decisions about nuclear power based on costs. Its role should be to provide adequate oversight and fulfill its legal obligations on nuclear waste. It is primarily private companies that produce America’s power,[12] and consumers pay for it. Their interactions in the marketplace should determine the best way to meet America’s energy needs……

Conclusion

Nuclear power must be expanded if CO2 caps are to work. Despite claims of high costs, nuclear power is competitive with renewable energy sources when all costs are factored in. The time has come to acknowledge the critical role that nuclear power will play in the United States.

The “progressives” want to send us back to the days before we had heating and air conditioning, before there were cars, before there were light bulbs, and before there were flush toilets or bath tissue. Better yet, they’ll go back to the days with no electricity. Their “science” is in about the same era when it can’t acknowledge the beginning of human life observable since the mid-1800s.

Yet somehow it is conservatives who are living in the past.