Progress Report on Virginia's Healthcare Law Suit

Below is a progress report on Virginia's fight against the healthcare bill.  Our favorite Attorney General, who spoke in Washington on 9/12, is making some progress on defeating the federal government forced healthcare program.  Hopefully, North Carolina will follow suit once the republicans obtain with the majority on 11/2/10.  In the meantime, you might want to donate to their legal defense fund.  See article below.

 

 

September 27, 2010

Dear Friends,
We are in the middle of the summary judgment phase of the health care case in the district court in Richmond, and I wanted to give you an update of where we stand at the moment and what's coming next.

So Far

I'm sure you all recall that on August 2^nd the judge in our case rejected all four of the feds' arguments for why Virginia's case should be dismissed, and that as part of his ruling, the judge noted how extraordinarily far the federal government is reaching (in a constitutional sense) in the federal health care law.
Interestingly, in the Florida case, they had their hearing on the feds' motion to dismiss on September 14^th.  This was the equivalent hearing to ours on July 1^st.
The judge in the Florida case indicated from the bench on September 14^th that he expected at least part of the states' case to go forward, i.e., survive the feds' motion to dismiss.  He also said that he would issue a ruling on October 14^th, so we're looking forward to seeing that, and we're hoping (and cautiously expecting) that our allies in Florida will be proceeding forward parallel to us here in Virginia.  It will be interesting to see that ruling only four days before our summary judgment oral argument in Richmond (more on this later).

Where We Are In the Process Now

On September 3^rd, both Virginia and the federal government filed their motions for summary judgment.  As the name implies, these motions are requests by each side to the court to rule "summarily," i.e., without a trial, in our favor.  In my opinion, these filings didn't hold much in the way of surprises.
However, this past week both sides filed their opposition to the other parties' motion for summary judgment.  Did you follow that?  For example, on September 3^rd, Virginia filed its motion for summary judgment and on September 23^rd, the feds filed their opposition to Virginia's motion for summary judgment.  And also on September 3^rd, the feds filed their motion for summary judgment, and we filed our opposition on September 23^rd.
One interesting note, we filed in the early afternoon on the 23^rd, while the feds filed at 9:49 p.m.  The deadline is midnight - yikes were they pushing it close to that line!

Some Eye Opening Items in the Feds' Opposition

Three things stood out most to me in the feds' opposition to our summary judgment.  One appears generally in the brief, while the other two both relate specifically to the discussion regarding the appropriate remedy if the court rules in Virginia's favor by declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional.
First, the general observation.  Call it the "silver bullet(s)" of their brief.  In several different locations, the feds cite cases never before appearing in this case for sweeping and powerful propositions.  In other words, they keep using them like 'silver bullets.'
A reading of some of these cases certainly looks like some real strrrrrreeeetttttcccchhhhing on their part, but we'll have to deal with that in our reply.  This observation may be nothing more than boring to non-lawyers (and to most lawyers...), but I'll leave that to y'all to decide.
The second and third observations are more interesting, and as I said, both relate to the potential remedy if the court declares the individual mandate to be unconstitutional.
The second observation is that the feds take a similar approach to determining what would be left of the law if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional.  I'm not used to them approaching much of anything in this case in a similar manner to us.
Here is one of their case quotes (i.e., where they quote a US Supreme Court case):

"After finding an application or portion of a statute unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all?"

[Timely side note: the case quoted is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.  This is the same Ayotte who is now running for the U.S. Senate in New  Hampshire. She was on the right side of that case!]
This quote is an interesting question that any of you can chew on... but don't chew on it just yet, until you read through my third observation.  Then come back to the question and come to your own conclusions.
The third observation is perhaps the most stunning (even though it's actually quite logical...).  The federal government has conceded that if the individual mandate is found unconstitutional, then all of what they refer to as the "insurance industry reforms" must fall alongside the individual mandate.
Given that up to this point, they have conceded nothing, I am genuinely shocked at the sweeping nature of this concession.  Now, mind you, as I mentioned above, this is a logical position.  Why is it a logical position?  Well, I'll tell you.
All along, the feds have said that their forced changes to the insurance industry's products REQUIRE that everyone must be in the insurance pool for their newly-redesigned (ruined?) insurance scheme to 'work.' [I just can't bring myself to type that word without quotes in this context.]  So, logically, if we beat the individual mandate, everyone will NOT be in the insurance pool; therefore, their other changes to their newly-redesigned insurance scheme will not 'work.'
Thus, they have conceded that if the insurance mandate is unconstitutional, then their other insurance requirements must also be discarded by the court.
Here is the quote from their brief:

"Under these principles, some provisions of the Act plainly cannot survive.  As defendants repeatedly have made clear ... insurance industry reforms in Section 1201 such as guaranteed-issue and community-rating will stand or fall with the minimum coverage provision.... As Virginia correctly recognizes, these regulations of the interstate insurance market must be coupled with the minimum coverage provision in order to be effective.  Absent a minimum coverage provision [a.k.a.: "individual mandate"], the guaranteed-issue and community-rating reforms in Section 1201 would cause many to drop coverage, leading to a spiral of increased premiums and a shrinking risk pool - the insurance market will 'implode.'  Because Congress would not have intended this result, these reforms cannot be severed from the minimum coverage provision."

Food for Thought

Okay, now let's look at the quoted question from my second observation again:

"After finding an application or portion of a statute unconstitutional, we must next ask: Would the legislature have preferred what is left of its statute to no statute at all?"

There are any number of sections in the legislation we could look at and contemplate this question, but one may reasonably ask whether ANYTHING would have passed without the insurance pieces of the bill.  Recall that many liberals were screaming that this bill was a 'sellout' and didn't go far enough.
In fact, I was on Fox Business on September 14^th - the day of the court hearing on the feds' motion to dismiss in the Florida case - and I was watching Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Far Left) on the show just before I went on.  He was sweeping in his attacks on what he called our "profit based system."  This system is also frequently referred to as "capitalism."
Historically of course, capitalism has provided the greatest opportunity to meet the needs and raise the standard of living of the most individuals of any economic system in the history of the world.  But, no matter...
Umm, Congressman, did you not notice what happened in all those other systems around the world in the last 100 years that didn't exist in "profit making systems?"  Perhaps we could sign him up for Cuban health care.  They have achieved Cong. Kucinich's dream of mandated universal coverage, and gee, look how long Castro has lived!  Surely it must be working well enough for the Congressman.
On the really expensive front, what they appear to be particularly targeting for saving is their massive (mandated) increase in Medicaid.  In Virginia, using the feds' cost estimates (which I have discussed at other times as having been completely discredited), we are looking at an additional $1billion+ added to our already difficult healthcare budget by FY 2022.  We will set aside where that money is supposed to come from for the moment... but would Congress have passed elements of the bill like the Medicaid increase without the individual mandate and the insurance elements?

I'll leave that question for you to contemplate as the case rolls forward.

What's Next?

On Monday, October 4^th, each side will file its final brief (the reply brief), AND all of the amicus briefs will be filed that day as well.  The amicus briefs will be very interesting and for those of you willing to dig into the details, you should take a look at those briefs.  Just seeing who files will be interesting, even if you don't read the briefs!
On October 18^th, we will be back in court for the summary judgment hearing.  This is where the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be openly debated in court.
At some point thereafter, perhaps around the end of November, the judge will likely issue an order with his ruling.
One other strategy of the feds' that became evident last week is their apparent intention to drag out the proceeding, at least for now.  They have clearly indicated to the judge that if he finds the individual mandate unconstitutional, that they will want him to hold yet another hearing to focus on what is the appropriate remedy.

In other words, they will want to pick the bill apart piece by piece, arguing over whether each piece should stay or go with the individual mandate.  Fun.
We shall see.

Collateral Impacts

Obviously, one other impact is on the November elections.  I will leave to each of you to determine how the healthcare matter is effecting those elections.
A little closer to home, we continue to take significant 'hits' from left-leaning media, including Olberman, Maddow and national outlets, alongside with the usuals: WaPo, Roanoke Times, and the Va. Pilot, so please keep up your support of our efforts, as much of what I am doing on the political side is simply educating folks up on all of this (see, e.g., the professional webcast on the healthcare case and first principles on my website at www.Cuccinelli.com).  We need your help writing letters to the editor and donating to help us swim against the tide of media assaults (e.g., the webcast is a political expense), so please keep us in mind and donate today!
As things roll forward, I will keep you up to date as best I can!

Thanks again for all of your support!
 
Sincerely,


Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

Carbon Credits, Cap and Trade, and Redistribution of Wealth

Yesterday, 9/22/2010, Hillary Clinton unveiled a $50 million transfer of your wealth to to purchase Cook Stoves for Africa (ref. Yahoo News). The unveiling by Ms Clinton notes that these stoves are needed to "save the lives of women and young children" who are dying in alarming numbers from inhaling toxic fumes from rudimentary stoves.

Well, like all the Progressive initiatives, this story is not really about the prevention of premature deaths among African women and young children, although that is a good cover story. But, as usual, they are lying! The real story as revealed by Glenn Beck today is about money, redistribution of wealth, and "trading air."

The carbon credits saved in Africa will be purchased by J. P Morgan Chase (Fortune Magazine) then resold at huge profits to industry in the USA, China, etc. who are generating "too much" CO2. Of course, industry will pass those costs on to the consumer (you). Thus, your money is "redistributed" to someone else for a fictional commodity that you pay for. Others who are involved with the scam: CitiGroup, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and Land Rover. They are  going to buy clean air, and sell it to people who make dirty air! Hmmm, smoke and mirrors maybe?

Did you know that your government had approved the trading of CO2? You thought that was in Cap and Trade that hasn't been passed by Congress and signed by the President yet? Well, apparently you were wrong!  You thought Climate Change had been set back; wrong again. You might want to read Global Government by 2025 published by Government Printing Office. You can download a PDF file of the document at the link provided.

It really is time for a change, but not the one the Progressive are trying to sneak by you.

A 'Psychoanalysis' of the Suceptability of Being Nudged

Glenn Beck's show tonight (9/22/2010) covered "The Most Dangerous Man in the USA," Cass Sunstein. Professor Sunstein is President Obama's Regulatory Czar, a position well suited for an academic whose goal in life is to conduct "Rat" experiments on the people of the United States of America. Professor Sunstein considers the average American to be 'Homer Simpson,' too dumb to make decisions on their own therefore in need of him to nudge us in the direction that he determines is best for us. Beck reviewed a host of areas that you and I are being nudged towards from controlling our diets, to our health care choices, to what we drive, and how much and the kind of energy we use. The purpose of this analysis is to delve into who the targets of this nudging are, and whom might be most susceptible to the nudging.

We will start with those who are in no need of nudging. Those are the Progressive elitest, like Professor Sunstein, President Obama, and most other Democrats. This group also includes union bosses, communist, marxist, socialist, and some others who were born genetically disposed to living off the labor of other people. These folks don't have to be nudged, and actually feel some self-aggrandizement from nudging other people. Sometimes, this group of people are referred to as BULLIES (which of course they enjoy calling other people).

The next group of people are called Independents. Independents like to think of themselves as being open-minded. This quality is what makes Independents so susceptible to nudging. Independents when presented with what on the surface seems to be a rationale idea usually go with the flow. Sometimes the flow moves left (in the political spectrum), and sometimes it moves right. This quality of the Independent is taken advantage of by the nudger by inundating the Independent with so much fallacious information it causes their brain to hurt from trying to be fair and balanced that they just give up and accept the nudgers premise. Independents are largely the reason the USA is in such a sorry state.

The next group of people are sometimes called conservatives, although many Progressives and others on the left call them morons, douche bags, f***ing idiots, and other pejoratives (due to their limited vocabulary). Conservatives are very resistant to nudging. In fact, conservatives have an irritating quality of asking questions like: "Did you read the bill?" "Why can't I eat a burger and fries if I want to?" "Is this law even Constitutional?" "Why does the government think they can spend my money better than I can?" "If I grow vegetables in my garden and want to give them away, what business is it of the governments?" You know stuff like that. Most conservatives don't like to be run through a maze, and usually like to decide things for themselves. Conservatives are candidates for Progressive reprogramming camps, and harsher treatment if they are uncooperative.

The last group are those in the Tea Party. These people are also called by other names by Progressives. Often they are called TeaBaggers, racist, homophobes, anti-abortionist, and even Christians! Tea Party people are extremely resistant to nudging. In fact, they are so resistant to nudging they sometimes carry signs and pray that Progressives will see the light and stop bullying everybody else.

The Tea Party Goes International

The following is from my email inbox. 

 It seems that the Tea Party is going international. I guess AstroTurf grows anywhere in the world, Nancy! 

Fox News did a spot on Cavuto with Daniel Hannan, UK Parliment.

The Daily Caller writes "International Protest Groups Take Up the 'Tea Party' Flag in Moscow, Tel Aviv and the Hague.

Progressives should be worried, very worried. They're a pariah around the world. Everything they do fails, and people suffer. The Progressives think they are the elite, but they are failures.

The left may have thought they were the only ones with global vision but not so. Inspired by common sense Americans, T.E.A. parties have started in the UK and Australia and more.

From Australia.

Welcome to the Australian T.E.A. Party Movement

Who are we?

We are NOT a political party indeed we are Non Party Political choosing to support or oppose whoever best helps the ideas and beliefs of our movement regardless of their party affiliation.

How do you know if you, like over 50 million people world wide are a natural Tea Party Movement supporter?

Can the Tea Party Movement be of benefit to you? It really is very simple.

We ask 2 basic questions.
What is, and what should be the role of government in the economy?
What is, and what should be the role of government in peoples lives?

If you think that the answers to what is vs what should be are very different-
Then you are a natural Tea Party Movement supporter.

Do you feel that you have lost your voice?
Has government and entrenched elites become the master and not the servant?
Do you feel that many of these elites are in both major political parties?
Do you think that real choices that would actually work - making life better are never presented?
Do you feel that every day, government gets bigger and your burden of paying for it - grows heavier?
Are you searching for something to do about it?

The Tea Party Movement can help you do something about it!


COME JOIN WITH US!

From the UK.

Since its launch its February, the TEA party movement of the UK have gone from strength to strength. Campaigning for libertarian principles of limited government and lower taxes, TEA party activists were initially critical of the Labour government, but now with tax increases in the budget, the current coalition government is also facing some backlash.

"Activists are hold a rally at next month's Conservative party conference in Birmingham at which criticism of Coalition policies will be aired.

A British division, launched last year by The Freedom Association, has held events including a "Boston tea party" in Boston, Lincs.

It has joined forces with the Taxpayers' Alliance pressure group, which is being advised by Freedom Works, a large Washington-based political group that backs Tea Party candidates."

There's more too.
The Dutch Tea Party (http://www.dutchteaparty.nl/)
The Italian Tea Party (http://www.teapartyitalia.it/)

Ronald Reagan Quotes

Something from my email inbox:


"Socialism works in only two places: Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell, where they already have it"

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, They lose!"

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that is not so"

"Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong"

"I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had to run them through Congress"

"The taxpayer: That's someone who works for the Federal Government, but doesn't have to take the civil service examination"

"Government is like a baby: an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end, and no sense of responsibility at the other"

"The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program"

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it has a striking resemblance to the first"

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And, If it stops moving, subsidize it"

"Politics is not a bad profession: If you succeed, there are many rewards; If you disgrace yourself, you can always write a book"

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women"

" If we ever forget that we are one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under"

Mini-Nuclear Reactors

Below is an article published in the Washington Post by Brian Palmer on September 14, 2010. Palmer is a freelance writer, but Palmer's credentials are not specified in the article. The article is replete with inaccuracies, over simplifications, and contradictions. I reprinted the entire article for easy reference; then following his reprint I commented on some of the issues I have with his assertions.

You can also see what Knight Science Journal Tracker at MIT has to say about this article.

Miniature nuclear reactors might be a safe, efficient source of power

By Brian Palmer
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, September 14, 2010; E01

Take a mental stroll through the streets of Anytown, U.S.A. City hall is on your left, the movie theater on your right. Smell the delights from the bakery. And in the distance, there's the gentle steam plume billowing from the cooling tower of the miniature nuclear reactor that powers the quaint little burg.

Not your idea of Americana? Wait a decade or two. The government and its private partners are developing reactors that one day might power your home town.

Not long ago, siting a nuclear reactor anywhere near a population center would have been unthinkable. While the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown didn't cause any deaths or injuries, it soured Americans on nuclear energy. Construction of new reactors came to an abrupt halt. The dramatic Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, meanwhile, created widespread fear that another accident could be even more disastrous.

Then along came carbon dioxide. Writing in The Post in 2006, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html> Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace who sailed on the group's first protest against nuclear weapons testing in 1971, noted: "More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power."

Greenpeace considers Moore a turncoat, and he's not the only one to be tossed out of the environmental establishment for pro-nuclear heresy. Hugh Montefiore, an Anglican cleric who was a stalwart in the movement, was forced to resign from the board of Friends of the Earth in 2004 for advocating nuclear power as a tool to combat global warming.

Back in the mainstream

Today, supporting nuclear power as a green alternative is quite mainstream. In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama <http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Barack_Obama> advocated "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants." In February, the administration offered to guarantee a loan <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021601302.html> for construction of the first nuclear plant to be built in the United States since the 1970s. The same month, billionaire Bill Gates gave his backing to the nuclear power renaissance, investing $50 million in TerraPower, a nuclear power research company that is hoping to design a new generation of reactors.

The question for many has shifted from whether to build nuclear plants to where and how. And increasingly there's interest in the idea of mini reactors: power plants that provide energy for only a small area.

When nuclear scientists talk about the size of a reactor, they're talking about maximum electrical output, not square footage. The world's largest reactors generate 1,455 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 1.5 million households. A program being run by the Department of Energy is focusing on models that would produce about 300 megawatts, enough for Knoxville, Tenn., according to Dan Ingersoll of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They may go even smaller, producing 50-megawatt reactors that could power small towns or even individual work sites, such as mines, that may be located far from the main energy grid.

Think locally

There are virtues to local reactors. If a reactor powers only one community, it can be built close to the end users. Between 4 and 10 percent of the electricity produced by U.S. power plants vanishes as it travels through power lines on its way to users. Building smaller plants and putting them closer to population centers could cut that figure significantly.

And doing so can save on construction costs as well. "It's getting very difficult and very expensive to lay new transmission lines," says Ingersoll. "This offers the possibility of providing isolated communities with power."

Believe it or not, living near a nuclear reactor may be safer than living near a coal-fired plant, which spews a host of dangerous chemicals into the air. The only visible emissions from a reactor is steam; the spent fuel is more of a byproduct. (More on that later.).

What about radiation, you ask? The ash coming from a typical coal plant carries plenty of radiation: According to some estimates, <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste>it carries 100 times more radiation into the surrounding area than a nuclear reactor producing the same amount of energy.

Smaller reactors might also be cheaper than their bigger siblings, according to Ingersoll. It costs a lot of money to build a gigawatt reactor (i.e., one that produces 1,000 megawatts), in part because it has to be put together on-site, one piece at a time, by expert welding crews. In today's larger reactors, all of which are being built outside the United States, the reactor vessel -- that's the cylindrical vault in which the fission takes place -- is about 90 feet in diameter, much too large to be shipped overland in one piece. Reactor vessels for mini-plants would be as small as about 10 feet across and could be loaded onto a train or maybe even onto the bed of a trailer. Once the pieces get to the site, they can be bolted together with far less manpower and equipment.

Small reactors can also be daisy-chained together as a city grows. Consider this: Today's typical 1,000-megawatt reactor can power a city of about a million homes. What happens when the population grows by 20 percent? A second big reactor would be expensive and unnecessary. Smaller increments are more manageable.

A big 'but'

Not convinced? You're not alone. Opponents point out that small reactors don't begin to solve the most worrisome aspects of nuclear energy: dangerous waste and the potential that the fuel could be used to build a weapon.

When you remove used-up fuel from a reactor, it's incredibly hot and very radioactive. The spent rods are moved into a concrete-encased pool, where they spend years cooling off. Eventually, they should be moved to a long-term storage facility, but one doesn't exist yet. (No one wants nuclear waste stored in their state.) As a result, there are more than 50,000 tons of uranium soaking in pools next to U.S. reactors, waiting for a permanent home.

As for the risks of nuclear proliferation, it's hard to separate generating nuclear power from building nuclear weapons, because the first few steps of the process are nearly identical.

Uranium can take several forms, which differ based on the number of neutrons in the nucleus. When miners pull uranium from a mine, more than 99 percent of what they get is U-238, which isn't all that useful for either power or weapons.

Today's nuclear reactors want the slightly lighter U-235. So the uranium ore is hauled off to enrichment plants, which keep pulling U-238 out of the sample until 3 to 5 percent of what's left is U-235. At that point, the sample can power a reactor.

"But you can use the same enrichment plant and just keep putting the stuff through over and over again until you get into the 90 percent range," says nuclear scientist John Gilleland, who runs TerraPower. "At that level, you can pipe all that stuff together and make a bomb."

Since you use the same ingredients, equipment and processes to create reactor and bomb fuel, countries such as Iran, which is suspected of having nuclear-weapons ambitions, can plausibly tell the world they're enriching for power-generation purposes for a long time before their true intentions are undeniable.

Many also fear that a nuclear cooling tower might look like a bull's-eye to a terrorist. The towers on small reactors would be narrower and shorter than those at big plants, since most of the reactor can be buried. While there has never been an attack on a nuclear plant, it remains a concern.

If it works . . .

TerraPower, the venture that has received Gates's backing, is working to develop a system that will solve some of the problems with today's nuclear reactors. Its "traveling wave reactor" would be powered almost completely by fuel rods containing depleted uranium, the concentrated U-238 that enrichment plants throw away after extracting U-235. (TerraPower plans to start with a 500-megawatt reactor, but it could be scaled smaller or larger as needed.)

Here's how it would work: A tiny amount of U-235 is introduced and split open, releasing a whole bunch of neutrons. The depleted uranium in the fuel rod absorbs one of the neutrons. The resulting form of uranium soon decays into plutonium, a very potent fissile material. When more neutrons strike the plutonium, huge amounts of energy are released, as well as some more neutrons to keep the reaction going.

The "traveling wave" term is fitting because this process starts at one end of the fuel rod and creeps slowly forward, burning up the U-238 as it goes. The progression could take as many as 60 years, another major advantage of the new reactor. Traditional reactors have to be stopped, opened and refueled every 18 months or so.

If it works, a traveling wave reactor would probably be cheaper than a similarly sized plant running on enriched uranium, since its fuel would be so plentiful. The United States has about 775,000 tons of depleted uranium sitting in steel cylinders in Paducah, Ky., Portsmouth, N.H., and Oak Ridge, Tenn. In the long run, countries would no longer be able to disguise their bomb factories as power plants, because running a reactor with enriched uranium wouldn't make economic sense. And the world could stop mining uranium, a process fraught with political and environmental hazards. According to Gilleland, there's already enough depleted uranium to satisfy the power needs of 10 billion Americans for 100 millennia.

So what are the chances a nuclear reactor will soon join the skyline of New Orleans, a city that's about the right size for TerraPower's envisioned 500 megawatt plant? It will probably all come down to economics, says Amory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmental think tank focused on the future of energy.

Lovins thinks that proponents of nuclear power are missing the bigger picture: The issue isn't whether nuclear energy can be made safely, it's whether it is the best option among the many sources of energy available.

According to Lovins, small modular reactors, whether based on traditional or traveling wave technology, are doomed to fail simply because the other options are cheaper. He notes that only one-third of the cost of nuclear power has anything to do with the reactor core. The majority of the cost is the steam-turbine machinery needed to convert the heat into electricity.

Even if small modular reactors are cheaper to assemble and the depleted uranium is free, he argues, nuclear will never be able to compete with wind and solar power, which also rely on free fuel but require far less capital investment.

The race for America's energy future is coming to a town near you. Will it be windmills or cooling towers? It all depends on the dollars and cents.

Hyperion, a New Mexico-based manufacturer, has said it plans to start delivering 25-megawatt reactors, which are about the size of a garden shed and cost around $25 million, in 2013. The first units will probably be installed in Eastern Europe. A few other companies, including Toshiba, are applying to the federal government for the right to build small reactors. And Oak Ridge's Ingersoll targets 2020 as the earliest date a U.S. city might come online.

Palmer is a freelance writer based in New York and a regular columnist for the Health and Science section's How and Why column.

As mentioned in the MIT article reference above, the vision of miniature nuclear reactors as presented by Palmer as Anytown, USA has been around for 50 years or more. I remember in Elementary School reading in the Weekly Reader about small power generators using nuclear materials being used to power shopping malls, small towns, and the like. To now say, 50 years later, that these mini-nuclear reactors are just decades away seems a bit pollyannaish. The problems with nuclear power in the USA are the Federal Government and radical environmentalism. Technology wise, the French, British, and Japan have and are showing that nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing are feasible. The only thing in the way of the USA for nuclear power is political will. With reasonable federal regulations, nuclear energy might be 'around the corner' in years, not decades.

Next, Palmer discusses in his article the Three Mile Island accident. He says that accident "soured Americans on nuclear energy." That is not exactly true in my opinion. Three Mile Island did scare lots of people, especially in the Dauphin County area near Harrisburg, PA; but what Three Mile Island really did was energize the environmental radicals within (mainly the Environmental Protection Agency) and outside (Palmer cites Greenpeace) of the federal government. The environmentalist pushed for and got oppressive environmental regulations, and then challenged every single Nuclear Regulatory Commission permit application throughout the regulatory process and in the courts. The cost to the Nuclear Power Industry was staggering.  Add to that the cost of unionized construction contracts, and the cost of building a nuclear plant was simply no longer profitable. Quite simply, the federal government suffocated nuclear power construction in the USA.

Then a change of pace by Palmer to a reversal by some environmentalist who came to the revelation (some 30 years later) that fossil fuels generate carbon dioxide and nuclear power doesn't. No problem with that analysis, but then Palmer says that "carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change." Well,  Mr. Palmer is wrong on two counts. First, as we are well aware of at this time, global warming, climate change, global climate disruption, or what ever else you want to call it is somewhat 'up in the air' right now with ClimateGate and some note scientist now saying they aren't so sure about global warming at this point. Also, carbon dioxide is not the primary greenhouse gas. Water vapor is responsible for 36% to 70% of the greenhouse effect (ref. cause-and-effect-for-global-warming). Carbon dioxide is only responsible for 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect. Controlling carbon dioxide emissions in reality would have limited impact on the greenhouse effect, and no one, not even the USA Federal Government can control water vapor emissions since most water vapor comes from the oceans, lakes and rivers the world over.

Palmer then touts President Obama's support of nuclear power in his 2010 State of the Union address. Palmer further cites Obama's offer of a government loan guarantee for the first nuclear plant to be built in the US. What Mr. Palmer doesn't say is not one meaningful thing has changed in the US regulatory system to expedite the approval and construction of nuclear power plants in the USA. Also, Mr. Palmer doesn't mention that there is a significant shortage of nuclear engineers and other professionals with nuclear experience. With the decline in nuclear plant construction, students transitioned to other fields. It will take years to train a US workforce capable of building and operating nuclear power plants (no matter what their size). Mr. Palmer's vision of a nuclear Anytown USA is simply a pipe-dream until the federal government makes some significant changes.

Mr. Palmer implies in his article that there is a link between Bill Gates invested $50 billion in a company named TerraPower and miniature nuclear reactors. But then later notes that TerraPower's initial plan is a 500 megawatt reactor. Then he surmises that the TerraPower reactor could easily be scaled up or down. At best this is a convoluted analysis of the future of miniature nuclear reactors. If it was only as easy as Palmer suggests, why hasn't someone already done it?

Palmer next goes off on another tangent writing about cooling towers at nuclear plants being a terrorist target. As the MIT article referenced above notes, whether the cooling towers are large or small makes no difference to potential terrorist. After all, it's all a matter of how accurate your aim is. But more to the point, blowing up a cooling tower would at worst shut down the nuclear plant from operating until they could rebuild the cooling tower. Safety systems would shut the reactors down, and release of nuclear material would be highly unlikely. Not much of an argument for building small reactors over mega-reactors.

Palmer notes that nuclear energy 'Opponents that small nuclear plants don't begin to solve the most worrisome aspects of nuclear energy: dangerous wastes and the potential for the use of the fuel could be used to produce weapons.' Palmer notes that radioactive wastes should be moved from their temporary storage location to a permanent waste disposal facility, but a permanent facility doesn't exist, because no one wants waste stored in their state. Well, Mr. Palmer is wrong on both counts, but for different reasons.
First, a permanent storage facility does exist. The Department of Energy has spent billions of dollars (about $10 billion) constructing and attempting to permit a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. Much of the money was spent attempting to address unreasonable environmental requirement and challenges by opponents. One such unreasonable requirement was to prove that the waste would be stable for 10,000 years. Now think about that, and use a little common sense. President Bush was on track to open the Yucca Mountain facility, but Congress delayed approval until President Obama took office. President Obama at the urging of Senator Harry Reid cancelled the Yucca Mountain facility purely for political reasons.
Second, saying that 'no one wants waste stored in their state' is simply ridiculous or uninformed. Why? Because, as noted in Palmer's article, current practice is to move spent fuel rods from the reactor to temporary storage in cooling basins which are located at the power plant in the state where power plant is located. That means the waste is already being stored where no one wants it to be stored. And it is being stored in a less-safe condition than it would be in the permanent facility at Yucca Mountain, NV. In addition, energy consumers (you) have been paying a tax on your power bill for decades to pay for storing waste at Yucca Mountain. And even thought President Obama has decided not to open Yucca Mountain, you are still paying the tax.
Third, It is my opinion that 'opposition's' mention of the fuel cycle enrichment and plutonium production might be used in weapons production is and always has been a 'red herring.' Any government intent on producing a nuclear weapon can do so given the proper equipment and qualified personnel. That was basically the conclusion of John Gilleland of TerraPower in Palmer's article. And if the 'opposition' was really as concerned as they seem about the US using reactor material for bombs, where are they on Iran building a nuke from their 'power plants?'  Face it, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, as North Korea has demonstrated and Iran soon will demonstrate.

All in all, Palmer's article was on par with the one I read in Weekly Reader some 50 years ago. It seems not much has changed in nuclear energy in those 50 years mainly because the federal government has gotten in the way of progress of the nuclear industry, and many other things in our lives.

Top 20 Pro-Socialism Sound Bites of Obama, Advisors & Allies

This video is a mix of the Top 20 Pro-Socialist sound bites from Obama, his advisors, and his allies. This comes from TheBlaze.com If nothing else motivates you to get out and vote, this should. If these politicians are willing to say this now, what do they have planned for us after the November 2010 elections? Obama promised he would "fundamentally change America;" what he didn't say was that he was changing America to look like Cuba, the former USSR, and Venezuela. We all need to rally conservatives to stop this madness in November.

The Global Climate Disruption Hoax

The White House Science Czar, John Holdren, has "invented" a new name for a failed concept in an attempt to breath new life into a near-dead idea (ref. Fox News). This is what elitist, Progressives like Holdren do when their attempts to manipulate the public don't work, they repackage the idea under a new name and try to fool you again. The concept of doing the same thing over and over expecting to get a different result is called "insanity" by highly technical folks like me; to everyday people is called "stupid."

First, they called it Global Warming. But then someone exposed Al Gore, and many in the scientific community as fraudsters. They were shown to have created bogus "statistical models," cooked the books with fraudulent data, schemed to discredit doubters, paid off politicians, and more.

So when things were looking dire, they changed the name to Climate Change, all the while thinking that the ordinary man wouldn't notice. But, to their surprise you did notice. You now knew that the hoax was created to financially benefit the political elite, to redistribute wealth, to control energy, and to subjugate the masses. The breath of Global Warming and Climate Change raled.

So, to the rescue comes John Holdren playing his shell game. The pea has a new name, Global Climate Disruption. This is the same John Holdren who in 1971 warned of a "New Ice Age" (ref. ClimateDepot.com). The same John Holdren who considered forced abortions in 1977 (ref. Fox News). Yes, the same John Holdren who has been linked to ClimateGate (ref. MichelleMalkin.com). And, the same John Holdren that sneers at United States exceptionalism (ref. RedState).

Now, this same John Holdren, who works for the President of the United States says that 'Global Warming is a Dangerous Misnomer' (ref. AmericanThinker).

Don't be fooled by this charlatan posing as a scientist. Don't let his fancy University degrees sway you into buying his snake oil. John Holdren is a liar, a manipulator, and like Global Warming, Climate Change, and Global Climate Disruption he is a fraud, a huckster, and worse a PROGRESSIVE!

Red Skelton - The Pledge of Allegiance

Probably the finest rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance EVER! Show it to your kids, your grandkids, and your great grandkids!

Bob Hope on Zombies and Democrats

Bob Hope was a man before his time. He had Democrats figured out long ago.

9-12 Tea Party Rally

On September 12 at 12 AM, the Crystal Coast Tea Party Patriots boarded a bus in the Morehead City, NC WalMart parking lot, and headed off to Washington, DC to attend the 9-12 Tea Party Rally. En route, we stopped in New Bern, NC to pick up some patriots there, then another stop in Kinston, NC for a few more patriots. We had a few empty seats due to last minute cancellations, but that allowed a few of our members a little extra room for napping on the way to DC.

We made a pit stop at a truck stop between Emporia, VA and Richmond, VA, then made the rest of the way into DC, arriving around 8:30 AM at the foot of the Washington Monument.

There was a light rain much of the morning with sermons and prayers before the march to the Capitol began around 11 AM. The crowd increased in size throughout the morning, although respectable in size, the crowd was smaller than last year.

The crowd was cheerful as we marched to the Capitol, chanting, singing patriotic songs, and interacting with supportive onlookers. I saw no disrespectful signs, and heard no disrespectful comments, although I heard there was a small group of Lyndon LaRouche supporters sporting Adolph Hitler masks and mustaches, and carrying signs that would be objectionable to any Tea Party member. The LaRouche supporters were confronted by a few folks as not representing Tea Party views, and ultimately were asked to leave by the police.

Our group began to gather around 4 PM at our bus for the trip back home. We got back to Morehead City, NC close to 12 midnight! It was a long day, but one that I'm very glad to have participated.

I have included some short video clips of the 9-12 gathering. I hope you enjoy them.