lb0611cd.jpg

The price of gas should force us to invest in alternative energy sources on economic grounds alone. The fact that much of the world’s readily available oil supply is in the hands of would be dictators like Chavez, or established dictators like the Saudi’s or outright religious lunatics like the Mullahs of Iran should force us to invest in alternative sources of energy, on security grounds alone. The fact that the much of the Western World (Britain, Germany, France Japan) already have adopted nuclear energy as that alternative should give us pause as to why we have not. That a ‘carbon-free’ source of energy would improve air quality by reducing emission particulates, ozone and carbon monoxide is established fact. The impact of carbon dioxide emission leading to Global Warming, while not a proven fact, is something to consider. If we reduce our carbon footprint, without buying carbon credits, Al Gore will go broke; such a laudable goal is worthy of a Manhattan Project.

Nuclear power is the only alternative that is anywhere near cost effective. The rest of the current crop of alternatives are economic losers. Research and development will be required on a massive scale for many of these ideas. Solar and geothermal power are untested in the market on an industrial scale. Wind power has been tried in CA and required huge capital expenditure for little energy, and is economically uncompetitive; even with $100+ per barrel oil, it will require a technological breakthrough to become viable. These lines of development effort have all three of the economic millstones around their necks: high-cost, high-risk and indeterminate schedule. All of these economic millstones make the alternative energy schemes attractive to the Democrats and their friends in ELF, Green Peace and the Sierra Club.

Nuclear power is a proven source of power that is used world wide. Nuclear power has been used for years. Proven nuclear power plant designs exist. In short, in comparison to the other alternatives nuclear power is low cost, low risk, and critically, has a determinant schedule. In a market that has not been politically skewed, as ours is, this power source would not be confined to less than ten percent of the energy production. This skewing is the result of lobbying by the likes of Green Peace and pandering by the likes of the Democrats.

In France and Japan nuclear energy accounts for the majority of the electrical energy production. Britain, Germany and Scandinavia are not far behind. All of these countries (and regions) are far more heavily populated than the United States. Why are we waiting? These countries’ nuclear programs, along with our current aging nuclear power plants, have provided us with proven, safe, and reliable field-tested designs. These countries are not as heavily impacted by the current energy crisis as we are because they have a nuclear cushion. Why are we allowing our economy to be wreaked?

What are we waiting for? We only lack the political will to overcome and defeat the Sierra Club, Green Peace and ELF and other members of the environmentalist/anti-humanist lobby. We also need to over come the coal and oil lobbies that work behind the scenes with the enviro-whackos. This is the irony, the self anointed champions of the environment are actually harming it due to their ignorance and fear. Ignorance and fear have lead to many stupid and evil outcomes in the past, this is one problem that has an ‘on-the-shelf’ solution, need we wait for things to get worse?