I've been surprised at the lack of interest for Congressional Term Limits so I thought I'd offer some thoughts as to why we need term limits.
The argument I've heard most often against term limits for Congress is that there are some good congressmen and women that we would lose if term limits were imposed. Well yeah, but there are a lot more bad ones that we would get rid of in the process. For every good politician you can name, someone else can easily name three or four corrupt ones. Besides, history should tell you that even the goods ones that stay long enough most often forget from whence they come.
Also, in my post laying out what a Constitutional Amendment on term limits might include, an elected representative could remain in office for 24 years if re-elected to the Senate for two terms and then to the House for six terms. That sure seems like a sufficient political career to me. And, if they are good enough they might get elected to President for two more terms totalling eight years. I think that is a recipe for keeping the best, and losing the rest.
By allowing someone to serve in both Houses, but limiting terms in each we should be able to significantly reduce the power accumulated by any one person or group of persons. The way the Senate and House leaders have recently pushed through bills on government health care should be reason enough to implement term limits to limit that kind of abuse of power.
Others might argue that it will take too long to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and I agree; but that is the process we have available to us, and this is too important to cast it aside because it's too hard. Anything worth having is worth working for, and our Freedom is worth whatever it takes to keep powerful, corrupt politicians from taking it away from us, our children, and our grandchildren.
Your thoughts would be much appreciated.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Energy 105, Thoughts on Wind Power
Wind power, like solar, is touted as the solution to the world's energy crisis (in itself a lie used by the Progressives to enslave the world's masses). As with solar power, and other green energies, wind power has been slow to catch on because without massive government subsidies wind power cannot compete on the economic level with fossil and nuclear power.
But, there are other problems with the use of wind power as a replacement for conventional power. These include:
But, there are other problems with the use of wind power as a replacement for conventional power. These include:
- Like solar power, wind is unreliable. The wind does not blow equally or consistently throughout the world. Wind sometimes blows, and sometimes doesn't. When it doesn't blow electricity is not produced; the fall back is always alternatives that are reliable - fossil or nuclear power. So neither wind, solar, or any other renewable source of energy can or will completely replace fossil and nuclear power in the near future (~50 years to 100 years). Common sense tells us that these alternatives are pipe dreams designed to slow down or stop progress.
- Wind power is also not acceptable to the elites, like Senator John Kerry and former Senator Ted Kennedy who only support wind turbines NIMBY (not in my backyard). In fact, almost everyone who is in favor of wind turbines are in favor only if they are located where they can't see them; even the most ardent environmentalist or socialist are only okay with wind turbines if they can't see them.
- Just as with solar power, no one really knows what impacts wind turbines (or massive solar farms) have on the environment and weather patterns. It is known that wind turbines kill birds (reference http://www.moorsydeactiongroup.org.uk/birds.html), sometimes in massive numbers. But how might wind turbines affect weather patterns? No one knows, but we do know that wind is created by heating and cooling of the sun. We also know that the Law of Conservation of Energy "energy cannot be created or destroyed." (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy) So solar energy is converted (partially) to wind energy which through the wind turbine is converted to electrical energy. That means energy is "extracted" from the wind to create electricity. Since, "energy is not created or destroyed" and energy is taken out of the wind by the wind turbine, the wind energy (or speed) will be reduced by the energy removed by the turbine. Might that lower wind energy affect low-pressure and high-pressure winds that also affect where rain is deposited? Since weather is such a chaotic system, the construction of massive wind farms is completely unknown. Many will argue one way, and many will argue the other, but the fact remains that the impact of wind, or solar energy generation is unknown and will certainly have unknown consequences.
The point is, the movement to so-called green or renewable energies is not as simple as the proponents want you to believe. Their agenda is not about what they want you to believe. If they were concerned about the environment, they would want to thoroughly study the potential impacts on the environment (plants, animals and meteorological). But, they don't because that is not their concern.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Constitutional Amendment for Congressional Term Limits
Given the recent events in Congress to pass a health care bill in the House of Representatives and the Senate, it is clear that Congress no longer represents the majority of "The People" so The People now must take their country back. The People can take back the country in a variety of peaceful ways. Some of these include:
"The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd)." Although this method is the only one that has been used to amend the Constitution, it seems unlikely that we could get both houses to craft a bill limiting their terms, much less pass each house by two-thirds majority.
"The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about." This method never having been tried will require some smart people to figure out how to get this done, but I believe is the only way to be successful in passing term limits.
"Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."
"The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"
It will take years to amend the Constitution, but amend we must. Congress is completely out-of-control; both Parties, Democrats and Republicans. This country was founded by people who were afraid of "big government" and who had personal experience with out-of-control government. They tried very hard to design a system where "The People" would be protected from big government. The Progressives (a misnomer designed to lull the less astute into believing they are what they are not) have been nibbling away at the Constitution for over 80 years. They have been and are being successful while the majority has been asleep at the wheel. It's time to wake up America!
I propose starting by soliciting ideas for the "Congressional Amendment." The following is a straw man:
- Kicking them out in an election; however, only half of them are up for re-election in the Senate, while all of the seats are up for grabs in the House. Not only that, we have to wait until 2010 for the election.
- Laws passed by Congress can be challenged in the courts to determine Constutionality. The problem with that is whose going to file the law suit? Whose going to pay for it? Any challenge would be only for the legislation challenged, so there would have to be multiple lawsuits for each piece of legislation. And with politics infused in the Supreme Court, the outcome(s) are uncertain. Law suits maybe the only immediate alternative to health care legislation should it pass, and for other laws and regulations such as EPA's proposed "Greenhouse Gas" blackmail.
- The only long-term solution as I see it is to amend the US Constitution to prevent any Congress EVER trying something like this again.
So, just how is the US Constitution Amended?
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. Reference: http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html">>>
"The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd)." Although this method is the only one that has been used to amend the Constitution, it seems unlikely that we could get both houses to craft a bill limiting their terms, much less pass each house by two-thirds majority.
"The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about." This method never having been tried will require some smart people to figure out how to get this done, but I believe is the only way to be successful in passing term limits.
"Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority."
"The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)"
It will take years to amend the Constitution, but amend we must. Congress is completely out-of-control; both Parties, Democrats and Republicans. This country was founded by people who were afraid of "big government" and who had personal experience with out-of-control government. They tried very hard to design a system where "The People" would be protected from big government. The Progressives (a misnomer designed to lull the less astute into believing they are what they are not) have been nibbling away at the Constitution for over 80 years. They have been and are being successful while the majority has been asleep at the wheel. It's time to wake up America!
I propose starting by soliciting ideas for the "Congressional Amendment." The following is a straw man:
- Congressional terms are limited to Six two-year terms (12 years total) for the House of Representatives, and Two six-year terms (12 years total) for the Senate.
- Upon completing the maximum number of terms set by this amendment, House and Senate members may run for election in either house in which they have not previously served for the term prescribed for that house.
- House and Senate members may run for the Office of President at any time for the term prescribed by the 22nd Amendment, two four-year terms.
- Former or present Congressional members may serve in any position in the Executive Branch for which they are confirmed by the Senate.
- Former Congressional members are prohibited from being lobbyist at any time
- Any active member of Congress from any state can be recalled in a national election by all eligible voters nationwide. Any member recalled forfeits all congressional retirement and benefits.
- End gerrymandering throughout the United States by which electoral district or constituency boundaries (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering)
- All congressional pay increases and benefits must be approved by the electorate every two years. Congress shall not enact any law that circumvents this requiretment.
- Congress shall not enact any law that does not apply to the Congress and the President, and their staffs. All such laws enacted in the past are null and void.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action" - George Washington
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Energy 104-O'Reilly on Nuclear Power
O'Reilly said on his show, Tuesday, December 8, 2009 that "we [USA] have not advanced nuclear power in this country."
I'm not sure if he meant "politically" or "technically" or something else.
Politically O'Reilly is correct. President Carter halted research and development on new nuclear technology when he was in office. We are still in the Carter "dark-ages." We have not built a new nuclear power plant in the US in decades. We have no nuclear reprocessing capability in the US, and we have no active safe nuclear waste storage facility in the US. We have a cumbersome, slow, and expensive permitting process which adds years to the construction of nuclear facilities.
To President Bush's credit, he tried to open the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. But President Obama has indicated his intention to close the Yucca Mountain facility, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f2cbe309-802a-23ad-4925-643845f220b5. President Bush began to streamline the permit process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but President Obama put all the roadblocks back into place upon taking office.
Technically, O'Reilly is dead wrong. The US is on par with the rest of the world. We have the capability to build new nuclear power plants, although the number of trained nuclear professionals in the US is dwindling. And the longer we delay in restarting a comprehensive nuclear program, the fewer technical resources we will have in this country.
The US taxpayer has been "taxed" for this facility for many years, and even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, the tax is still being levied.
By changing some political decisions, nuclear power could represent nearly all of the US energy needs in less than 20 years (see France for proof). Every year of political delay moves that possibility out years.
Nuclear power is a zero carbon energy source, and we would never run out of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants work when the wind isn't blowing, and when the sun isn't shinning. The latter energy sources will always be secondary or backup energy; never our primary source of energy. Using nuclear power in the US combined with developing our on fossil fuel resources (natural gas, and off-shore and Alaskan oil) would make us independent of foreign oil.
I'm not sure if he meant "politically" or "technically" or something else.
Politically O'Reilly is correct. President Carter halted research and development on new nuclear technology when he was in office. We are still in the Carter "dark-ages." We have not built a new nuclear power plant in the US in decades. We have no nuclear reprocessing capability in the US, and we have no active safe nuclear waste storage facility in the US. We have a cumbersome, slow, and expensive permitting process which adds years to the construction of nuclear facilities.
To President Bush's credit, he tried to open the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. But President Obama has indicated his intention to close the Yucca Mountain facility, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f2cbe309-802a-23ad-4925-643845f220b5. President Bush began to streamline the permit process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but President Obama put all the roadblocks back into place upon taking office.
Technically, O'Reilly is dead wrong. The US is on par with the rest of the world. We have the capability to build new nuclear power plants, although the number of trained nuclear professionals in the US is dwindling. And the longer we delay in restarting a comprehensive nuclear program, the fewer technical resources we will have in this country.
The US taxpayer has been "taxed" for this facility for many years, and even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, the tax is still being levied.
By changing some political decisions, nuclear power could represent nearly all of the US energy needs in less than 20 years (see France for proof). Every year of political delay moves that possibility out years.
Nuclear power is a zero carbon energy source, and we would never run out of nuclear energy. Nuclear plants work when the wind isn't blowing, and when the sun isn't shinning. The latter energy sources will always be secondary or backup energy; never our primary source of energy. Using nuclear power in the US combined with developing our on fossil fuel resources (natural gas, and off-shore and Alaskan oil) would make us independent of foreign oil.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Energy 103-Solar vs Nuclear
In Energy 102, I talked about Solar Energy. Since that post "the nation's largest solar farm was opened for business in FL http://bit.ly/2VyrHX.
Muskegon's Newkirk Electric solar farm generates 27 MegaWatts electric (MWe); it is located on 180 acres of treeless land so the solar panels can receive and convert the suns energy to electricity during the cloudless, daylight hours. During the night or on days that are overcast, the solar farm does not generate electricity. At times like those, customers must be provided with electricity generated from the B. C. Cobb coal-fired power plant. The 27 MWe is estimated to provide electricity to 3,000 homes when it is actually producing electricity. The B. C. Cobb coal-fired plant generates 500 MWe.
In comparison, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/ generates 1,135 MWe. I estimated that Calvert Cliffs NPP is located on ~260 acres using Google Earth and observed that much of the power plants land is wooded. The actual area of the facility might be larger, but that would simply mean that the total wooded area of the facility is even bigger. Calvert Cliffs NPP generates power 24-hrs/day, 7 days/week. Every few years one of the two units is shut-down for maintenance, but the other unit continues to produce electricity. This is typical of nuclear power plants throughout the world.
The bottom-line is that solar farms are typically smaller than conventional power plants, they do not generate electricity at night or when it is cloudy so must be supplemented by conventional power, they occupy a lot of land mass from which trees and structures are removed so as not to block the sun, they shade the ground around the solar panels and prevent the sun from providing normal light exposure to plants and animals that inhabit solar farm's ecosystem, and the cost to the consumer is generally higher per unit than for conventional power plants.
Muskegon's Newkirk Electric solar farm generates 27 MegaWatts electric (MWe); it is located on 180 acres of treeless land so the solar panels can receive and convert the suns energy to electricity during the cloudless, daylight hours. During the night or on days that are overcast, the solar farm does not generate electricity. At times like those, customers must be provided with electricity generated from the B. C. Cobb coal-fired power plant. The 27 MWe is estimated to provide electricity to 3,000 homes when it is actually producing electricity. The B. C. Cobb coal-fired plant generates 500 MWe.
In comparison, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in MD http://www.constellation.com/portal/site/constellation/menuitem.0275303d670d51908d84ff10025166a0/ generates 1,135 MWe. I estimated that Calvert Cliffs NPP is located on ~260 acres using Google Earth and observed that much of the power plants land is wooded. The actual area of the facility might be larger, but that would simply mean that the total wooded area of the facility is even bigger. Calvert Cliffs NPP generates power 24-hrs/day, 7 days/week. Every few years one of the two units is shut-down for maintenance, but the other unit continues to produce electricity. This is typical of nuclear power plants throughout the world.
The bottom-line is that solar farms are typically smaller than conventional power plants, they do not generate electricity at night or when it is cloudy so must be supplemented by conventional power, they occupy a lot of land mass from which trees and structures are removed so as not to block the sun, they shade the ground around the solar panels and prevent the sun from providing normal light exposure to plants and animals that inhabit solar farm's ecosystem, and the cost to the consumer is generally higher per unit than for conventional power plants.
Monday, September 7, 2009
"Dinner with Obama"
A Fable by Unknow Author:
Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor. I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.
The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen. "Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry." "I don't appreciate.." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty.. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp. "And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President. I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind. My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite. "Eric's children are also quite hungry." With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room. "And their grandmother can't stand for long." I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President. "Their grandfather doesn't like the cold." I wanted to shout - that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him. "Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do." My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops. "By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Eric's and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars." I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair.
He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost?
I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us. What had I done wrong? As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.
"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.
Wake up America!
Once upon a time, I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President. I am a respected businessman, with a factory that produces memory chips for computers and portable electronics. There was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, but I paid it no mind. I live in a free country. There's nothing that the government can do to me if I've broken no laws. My wealth was earned honestly, and an invitation to dinner with an American President is an honor. I checked my coat, was greeted by the Chief of Staff, and joined the President in a yellow dining room. We sat across from each other at a table draped in white linen. The Great Seal was embossed on the china. Uniformed staff served our dinner.
The meal was served, and I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked a dinner roll off my plate, and began nibbling it as he walked back to the kitchen. "Sorry about that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry." "I don't appreciate.." I began, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I felt immediately guilty and petty.. It was just a dinner roll. "Of course," I concluded, and reached for my glass. Before I could, however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and swallowed the wine in a single gulp. "And his brother Eric is very thirsty." said the President. I didn't say anything. The President is testing my compassion, I thought. I will play along. I don't want to seem unkind. My plate was whisked away before I had tasted a bite. "Eric's children are also quite hungry." With a lurch, I crashed to the floor. My chair had been pulled out from under me. I stood, brushing myself off angrily, and watched as it was carried from the room. "And their grandmother can't stand for long." I excused myself, smiling outwardly, but inside feeling like a fool. Obviously I had been invited to the White House to be sport for some game. I reached for my coat, to find that it had been taken. I turned back to the President. "Their grandfather doesn't like the cold." I wanted to shout - that was my coat! But again, I looked at the placid smiling face of my host and decided I was being a poor sport. I spread my hands helplessly and chuckled. Then I felt my hip pocket and realized my wallet was gone. I excused myself and walked to a phone on an elegant side table. I learned shortly that my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank accounts emptied, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife had been thrown out of our home. Apparently, the waiters and their families were moving in. The President hadn't moved or spoken as I learned all this, but finally I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face him. "Andrew's whole family has made bad financial decisions. They haven't planned for retirement, and they need a house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage. I told them they could have your home. They need it more than you do." My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor. The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth that were water drops. "By the way," He added, "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I'll be operating the firm now for the benefit of all mankind. There's a whole bunch of Eric's and Andrews out there and they can't come to you for jobs groveling like beggars." I looked up. The President dropped his spoon into the empty ramekin which had been his creme brulee. He drained the last drops of his wine. As the table was cleared, he lit a cigarette and leaned back in his chair.
He stared at me. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I were a man hanging over an abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived. The life I had earned with a lifetime of work, risk and struggle. Why was I punished? How had I allowed it to be taken? What game had I played and lost?
I looked across the table and noticed with some surprise that there was no game board between us. What had I done wrong? As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.
"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll," he said.
Wake up America!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Energy 102-Green Energy
What are renewable (or green) sources of energy? They generally include solar, wind, and geothermal conversion to electricity. Other renewables, such as electrical energy derived from the movement of ocean currents, waves, and tides are also considered renewables.
They are considered to come from natural sources, and to be naturally replenished (renewable). They are considered to be 'environmental friendly' by some because they are perceived as not damaging the environment, and they are thought not to be consumed in the generation of energy (naturally replenished), therefore they go on forever without 'stealing' from the earth (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy).
Of course, both oil, natural gas, and nuclear are all from natural sources. However, you will NEVER hear of nuclear as a renewable energy source even though the "burning" of nuclear materials in a reactor can produce new nuclear fuel to produce more energy.
Much to do has been made by politicians about doing more research to make renewable energy more competitive by reducing their cost. This is all a distraction to keep supporters of renewable energy at bay because most politicians know renewables can not replace traditional energy sources. They just want you to think they are doing all they can to replace traditional sources of energy. Technology can always be tweaked, but at some point the hard decision has to be made to lock in the existing technology and move forward. So why haven't we done that?
Now why do I say that renewables can't replace traditional sources of energy?
Solar-uses photoelectric or photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy). Technology to produce solar cells has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. There are no carbon emissions or other emissions from solar generated electricity.
However, there are concerns to be considered. (1) Some environmentalist in the western United States, and others have raise concerns about the large areas of land used for solar farms. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impact to plants and animals that live in those environs to the significant reduction of sunlight reaches those plants and animals over extremely large areas. No one has done a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these impacts as is required for a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear power plant, or a petroleum refinery. (2) The sun only shines half the time, which means no electricity is being generated at night. That means a solar farm has to be made 2x bigger than a conventional power plant so that enough energy can be produced and stored to meet energy demands. That requires more land area and compounds the issues in item (1) above. (3) Since electricity is not being produced half the time, excess energy must be produced and stored to provide a consistent supply of electricity. The excess energy is stored in batteries. The batteries require a storage area, like a warehouse, that uses more land (see item (1) above). In addition, batteries contain various hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, corrosives, etc. depending on the type of batteries used. These batteries will ultimately need disposal as hazardous waste and/or need expensive recycling with concomitant hazards. And they are expensive which will ultimately increase the cost of the electricity. (4) The photovoltaic cells contain various hazardous materials that will also have to be disposed of as hazardous wastes and/or expensive recycling. (5) A complicated, but potentially real issues that must be addressed in any EIS is the impact, if any, of sprawling solar farms on weather patterns. Yes, the impact on weather. The sun heats the earth, evaporates water, and creates winds. What happens when much of the suns energy is converted to electricity? That part that is converted cannot be used to heat the earth, evaporate water, and cause winds. This potential impact must be evaluated in an EIS before large land mass is dedicated to solar farms.
So how large of land mass is required for a solar farm. Well, if you build one to generate one million kilowatts of electrical power (the typical nuclear plant output, http://www.me.sc.edu/nuclear/NE-FAQs.pdf) you would need to build a solar farm at least the size of Rhode Island. Wow!
More on the other renewable energy sources next time.
They are considered to come from natural sources, and to be naturally replenished (renewable). They are considered to be 'environmental friendly' by some because they are perceived as not damaging the environment, and they are thought not to be consumed in the generation of energy (naturally replenished), therefore they go on forever without 'stealing' from the earth (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy).
Of course, both oil, natural gas, and nuclear are all from natural sources. However, you will NEVER hear of nuclear as a renewable energy source even though the "burning" of nuclear materials in a reactor can produce new nuclear fuel to produce more energy.
Much to do has been made by politicians about doing more research to make renewable energy more competitive by reducing their cost. This is all a distraction to keep supporters of renewable energy at bay because most politicians know renewables can not replace traditional energy sources. They just want you to think they are doing all they can to replace traditional sources of energy. Technology can always be tweaked, but at some point the hard decision has to be made to lock in the existing technology and move forward. So why haven't we done that?
Now why do I say that renewables can't replace traditional sources of energy?
Solar-uses photoelectric or photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight directly into electricity (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy). Technology to produce solar cells has improved dramatically over the last 20 years. There are no carbon emissions or other emissions from solar generated electricity.
However, there are concerns to be considered. (1) Some environmentalist in the western United States, and others have raise concerns about the large areas of land used for solar farms. They are also concerned about the potential environmental impact to plants and animals that live in those environs to the significant reduction of sunlight reaches those plants and animals over extremely large areas. No one has done a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on these impacts as is required for a coal-fired power plant, a nuclear power plant, or a petroleum refinery. (2) The sun only shines half the time, which means no electricity is being generated at night. That means a solar farm has to be made 2x bigger than a conventional power plant so that enough energy can be produced and stored to meet energy demands. That requires more land area and compounds the issues in item (1) above. (3) Since electricity is not being produced half the time, excess energy must be produced and stored to provide a consistent supply of electricity. The excess energy is stored in batteries. The batteries require a storage area, like a warehouse, that uses more land (see item (1) above). In addition, batteries contain various hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, corrosives, etc. depending on the type of batteries used. These batteries will ultimately need disposal as hazardous waste and/or need expensive recycling with concomitant hazards. And they are expensive which will ultimately increase the cost of the electricity. (4) The photovoltaic cells contain various hazardous materials that will also have to be disposed of as hazardous wastes and/or expensive recycling. (5) A complicated, but potentially real issues that must be addressed in any EIS is the impact, if any, of sprawling solar farms on weather patterns. Yes, the impact on weather. The sun heats the earth, evaporates water, and creates winds. What happens when much of the suns energy is converted to electricity? That part that is converted cannot be used to heat the earth, evaporate water, and cause winds. This potential impact must be evaluated in an EIS before large land mass is dedicated to solar farms.
So how large of land mass is required for a solar farm. Well, if you build one to generate one million kilowatts of electrical power (the typical nuclear plant output, http://www.me.sc.edu/nuclear/NE-FAQs.pdf) you would need to build a solar farm at least the size of Rhode Island. Wow!
More on the other renewable energy sources next time.
Compromise Begets Mediocrity
Some politicians champion compromise as a virtue. Senator John Magoo (R-AZ) comes to mind hailing himself as a maverick who compromises his conservative principles (if he indeed has any) to accommodate the likes of the former Senator Ted Kennedy.
But is compromise all that it is cracked up to be? Not at all; compromise begets mediocrity. The best one could ever hope for when a compromise is reached is average, but the results are usually below average.
There is a notable exception to compromise, which the Democrats have successfully exploited because they have a long-term plan; unlike Republicans like Senator Magoo who compromises to show how magnanimous he is.
Let's examine compromise in a practical example:
First, pretend that you are a liberal, progressive Democrat. I know how creepy, repulsive, gag-in-the-mouth it is pretending you are a liberal Democrat, but it's necessary for the greater good. As a liberal, progressive Democrat you want everybody but yourself to have government controlled, nationalized, public option health care plan.
Second, as an intelligent, conservative American with sound principles and common sense, you want a health care plan that provides the best health care in the world (like 85% of us already have) to be available to all who want it, where you don't have to wait in long lines (which we also have except in the emergency room because of illegal aliens), where you can talk to your doctor and make your own decisions along with your doctor and your family (not the government), and without the government deciding that you are no longer worth spending money on to see a doctor. That's basically what we have now for 85% of legal Americans. You recognize that there are some problems with the current system, but most of the problems are the result of 133,000 pages of regulations currently in the Federal Register. These problems can be fixed without completely overhauling a health care system that most (85%) people are pretty satisfied with.
If you are Senator John Magoo you might blurt out at a town hall meeting without thinking that "what we need to do is work with the Democrats to find a compromise on health care reform." Well, if the Senator does that what might the result be?
First, one might conclude that some of the things you like about your current health care plan will go away, because the good Senator from AZ will have to give up something. So now 85% of us are a little less happy with the health care we have than we are now.
Second, you might also conclude that some sort of government option, such as the public option, health care co-ops, or a "trigger" might be included by the other side. But don't worry, it's 'just in case.' And, of course, being a compromisor Senator Magoo goes along with it. Now 85% of us happy Americans are just a little less happier than we were before.
Now, remember that the long-term plan the Democrats have. They just got part, a big part, of what they want. They know that all they have to do is sit back, wait, then come back to the table later to carve out another piece of the pie from their original plan. Compromise is good for them, because they don't give up anything; they keep picking away at the public option, or whatever their progressive agenda calls for them to do.
The Republicans on the other hand skip off into lala-land thinking how great they are, and that they won a big victory by making the Democrats compromise. All the while not having a clue that they, the Republicans, just eroded a little bit more of our freedom.
And what did we get? A government health care plan that 85% of the people are lot less happy with because the government is now involved with our health care decision-making, that really cost more than what we previously had because not only do you now pay for your government health insurance, but your taxes have gone up to pay for the inevitable deficit, the fraud and abuse, and to pay off all of the special interest on both sides of the aisle.
Compromise is not inevitable; it is a cop-out!
Live free or die at the hands of the government.
But is compromise all that it is cracked up to be? Not at all; compromise begets mediocrity. The best one could ever hope for when a compromise is reached is average, but the results are usually below average.
There is a notable exception to compromise, which the Democrats have successfully exploited because they have a long-term plan; unlike Republicans like Senator Magoo who compromises to show how magnanimous he is.
Let's examine compromise in a practical example:
First, pretend that you are a liberal, progressive Democrat. I know how creepy, repulsive, gag-in-the-mouth it is pretending you are a liberal Democrat, but it's necessary for the greater good. As a liberal, progressive Democrat you want everybody but yourself to have government controlled, nationalized, public option health care plan.
Second, as an intelligent, conservative American with sound principles and common sense, you want a health care plan that provides the best health care in the world (like 85% of us already have) to be available to all who want it, where you don't have to wait in long lines (which we also have except in the emergency room because of illegal aliens), where you can talk to your doctor and make your own decisions along with your doctor and your family (not the government), and without the government deciding that you are no longer worth spending money on to see a doctor. That's basically what we have now for 85% of legal Americans. You recognize that there are some problems with the current system, but most of the problems are the result of 133,000 pages of regulations currently in the Federal Register. These problems can be fixed without completely overhauling a health care system that most (85%) people are pretty satisfied with.
If you are Senator John Magoo you might blurt out at a town hall meeting without thinking that "what we need to do is work with the Democrats to find a compromise on health care reform." Well, if the Senator does that what might the result be?
First, one might conclude that some of the things you like about your current health care plan will go away, because the good Senator from AZ will have to give up something. So now 85% of us are a little less happy with the health care we have than we are now.
Second, you might also conclude that some sort of government option, such as the public option, health care co-ops, or a "trigger" might be included by the other side. But don't worry, it's 'just in case.' And, of course, being a compromisor Senator Magoo goes along with it. Now 85% of us happy Americans are just a little less happier than we were before.
Now, remember that the long-term plan the Democrats have. They just got part, a big part, of what they want. They know that all they have to do is sit back, wait, then come back to the table later to carve out another piece of the pie from their original plan. Compromise is good for them, because they don't give up anything; they keep picking away at the public option, or whatever their progressive agenda calls for them to do.
The Republicans on the other hand skip off into lala-land thinking how great they are, and that they won a big victory by making the Democrats compromise. All the while not having a clue that they, the Republicans, just eroded a little bit more of our freedom.
And what did we get? A government health care plan that 85% of the people are lot less happy with because the government is now involved with our health care decision-making, that really cost more than what we previously had because not only do you now pay for your government health insurance, but your taxes have gone up to pay for the inevitable deficit, the fraud and abuse, and to pay off all of the special interest on both sides of the aisle.
Compromise is not inevitable; it is a cop-out!
Live free or die at the hands of the government.
Energy 101-What Energy Policy?
Since the 1970's Energy Crisis, no one, Republican or Democrat has put on the table a comprehensive Energy Policy. Everyone in elected office has decried our dependence on foreign oil while obstructing the pursuit of domestic oil production in the name of environmentalism. Even after September 11th when terrorist attacked us on our own soil using money obtained from our importation of foreign oil, not a single politician of either party sought to put forth an Energy Policy that would make us relatively independent of foreign oil. Our governments apathy regarding energy independence has resulted in the continued increase of foreign oil imports with the result of billions of dollars being transferred to terrorist states, or at the least states sponsoring terrorism. These insane policies are not limited to the United States; recently Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain brokered the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the killer of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in exchange for British Petroleum to obtain rights to oil in Libya. As bad as that is, the United States under both Republican and Democratic leadership has been and is as irresponsible.
Both Republicans and Democrats have hidden behind the guise of needing to develop new sources of energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. They have all spent millions of dollars on the development of such whimsical ideas as electric cars as our salvation. Just a few months ago, Barrack Obama told some workers in Ohio that he would spend $15 billion on the development of new battery technology to power the cars of the future, and create thousands of new jobs. I guess he knows something that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) doesn't already know. NASA and DOE have both spent millions of dollars trying to develop new battery technologies as early as the mid-1060's for the space program, and later in response to the energy crisis in the 1970's. These are all just distractions so that Congress and the President can continue to "fiddle while Rome burns."
Why haven't these alternative energy sources replaced oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear? Many would try to give a very long list of reasons, but the bottom line is that no other alternative energy source is cost competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. In fact, if it weren't for government regulation of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear they would be even cheaper than they are currently, and the alternative (green or renewable) energy sources would be at an even greater cost disadvantage. Then take away the government subsidies for these alternative sources (include ethanol here), the cost differential is enormous.
So, as President Obama much too often says, let me make this perfectly clear: Every US citizen who uses energy pays more for the energy they use due to government regulation and taxes; then every US citizen pays additional subsidies in the form of taxes to make alternative energy, including ethanol, more competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. You pay twice. On top of that, all the politicians drag their feet when it comes to developing new domestic energy sources, and they throw every roadblock possible in the way of building new nuclear power plants, reprocessing facilities, and safe disposal sites. These are the reasons why we don't have energy independence, and every single person no matter their economic status or political affiliation PAYS through the nose for energy because both parties are content to sit idly by while the cost continues to grow, and we continue to fund terrorist states who want to kill Americans.
Then we see the wealthy T. Boone Pickens on TV asking us to support wind power; then later natural gas as the ultimate answer. Why? Because he owns many square miles of land throughout the West that he wants to capitalize on for wind farms, and he owns land that holds natural gas that he wants to sell. Now I don't mind that at all really, but everyone should know why he's hawking the snake oil he's hawking. In fact, I actually like natural gas as one alternative that America should unleash. Wind power is something else however.
So what's wrong with the green or renewable energy sources, and what are the sources of energy we should be aggressively pursuing? More on that in the next segment.
Both Republicans and Democrats have hidden behind the guise of needing to develop new sources of energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and the like. They have all spent millions of dollars on the development of such whimsical ideas as electric cars as our salvation. Just a few months ago, Barrack Obama told some workers in Ohio that he would spend $15 billion on the development of new battery technology to power the cars of the future, and create thousands of new jobs. I guess he knows something that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) doesn't already know. NASA and DOE have both spent millions of dollars trying to develop new battery technologies as early as the mid-1060's for the space program, and later in response to the energy crisis in the 1970's. These are all just distractions so that Congress and the President can continue to "fiddle while Rome burns."
Why haven't these alternative energy sources replaced oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear? Many would try to give a very long list of reasons, but the bottom line is that no other alternative energy source is cost competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. In fact, if it weren't for government regulation of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear they would be even cheaper than they are currently, and the alternative (green or renewable) energy sources would be at an even greater cost disadvantage. Then take away the government subsidies for these alternative sources (include ethanol here), the cost differential is enormous.
So, as President Obama much too often says, let me make this perfectly clear: Every US citizen who uses energy pays more for the energy they use due to government regulation and taxes; then every US citizen pays additional subsidies in the form of taxes to make alternative energy, including ethanol, more competitive with oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear. You pay twice. On top of that, all the politicians drag their feet when it comes to developing new domestic energy sources, and they throw every roadblock possible in the way of building new nuclear power plants, reprocessing facilities, and safe disposal sites. These are the reasons why we don't have energy independence, and every single person no matter their economic status or political affiliation PAYS through the nose for energy because both parties are content to sit idly by while the cost continues to grow, and we continue to fund terrorist states who want to kill Americans.
Then we see the wealthy T. Boone Pickens on TV asking us to support wind power; then later natural gas as the ultimate answer. Why? Because he owns many square miles of land throughout the West that he wants to capitalize on for wind farms, and he owns land that holds natural gas that he wants to sell. Now I don't mind that at all really, but everyone should know why he's hawking the snake oil he's hawking. In fact, I actually like natural gas as one alternative that America should unleash. Wind power is something else however.
So what's wrong with the green or renewable energy sources, and what are the sources of energy we should be aggressively pursuing? More on that in the next segment.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Geraldo
On August 7th, 2009, Geraldo Rivera appeared on Fox and Friends for his usual Friday promo. I like Geraldo, even though I don't often agree with him. I admire his support of our troops, and the intensity with which defends his positions no matter how irrational I think they are.
This Friday, I realized as he was talking about race, that when I first saw him many years ago I never really paid much attention to his Latino heritage. He was an interesting figure to me. Even now when I see him I don't think "Latino" until he starts in on his views of race. At that moment, I see a Latino not Geraldo. Geraldo is fixated on his heritage, and that white people are racial, if not racist. Even with his success, he doesn't see the playing field as level.
I don't think that race has never been a major factor in my daily life; sure it's there but mostly when someone else brings it up. Admittedly, most of my daily interactions have been with professional people who are well-educated and race didn't seem to be relevant; but then I see people like Geraldo who just can't say two words without focusing on race and profiling.
Now I do profile. I think any normal person profiles, or they are liars. I probably profile everbody I see; although you could call what I do "making a judgement" about a person. I profile good-looking people, heavy people, skinny people, people with tatoos, with piercings, with muscle shirts riding Harleys, with long-greasy hair and missing teeth, with stockings on their heads, hoodys, pants hanging from their thighs, baseball caps worn backwards, with baggy pants that can hide a weapon, people driving while doing their hair and nails ... that sort of thing.
One would be stupid not to take notice of their surroundings and people. I'll bet Geraldo does it every day. But why is it that Geraldo seems to think that when white people do it its wrong, and when Latinos, blacks, etc do it is okay?
As Martin Luther King said "I have a dream." Mine is that one day we could all just be Americans, like Canadians are Canadians and Brits are Brits. For now though I'll just be an American Scot thank you.
This Friday, I realized as he was talking about race, that when I first saw him many years ago I never really paid much attention to his Latino heritage. He was an interesting figure to me. Even now when I see him I don't think "Latino" until he starts in on his views of race. At that moment, I see a Latino not Geraldo. Geraldo is fixated on his heritage, and that white people are racial, if not racist. Even with his success, he doesn't see the playing field as level.
I don't think that race has never been a major factor in my daily life; sure it's there but mostly when someone else brings it up. Admittedly, most of my daily interactions have been with professional people who are well-educated and race didn't seem to be relevant; but then I see people like Geraldo who just can't say two words without focusing on race and profiling.
Now I do profile. I think any normal person profiles, or they are liars. I probably profile everbody I see; although you could call what I do "making a judgement" about a person. I profile good-looking people, heavy people, skinny people, people with tatoos, with piercings, with muscle shirts riding Harleys, with long-greasy hair and missing teeth, with stockings on their heads, hoodys, pants hanging from their thighs, baseball caps worn backwards, with baggy pants that can hide a weapon, people driving while doing their hair and nails ... that sort of thing.
One would be stupid not to take notice of their surroundings and people. I'll bet Geraldo does it every day. But why is it that Geraldo seems to think that when white people do it its wrong, and when Latinos, blacks, etc do it is okay?
As Martin Luther King said "I have a dream." Mine is that one day we could all just be Americans, like Canadians are Canadians and Brits are Brits. For now though I'll just be an American Scot thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)