Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed


  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Government Vs. Government on Energy


    By Rougman, Section News
    Posted on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    Tags: Energy (all tags)

    One might think, in theory at least, that taking action to save the planet would be good for the birds that have to live in it. Then again, one might think that disallowing an action that might unnecessarily kill birds would also be good for the planet.

    But, what is one supposed to feel about an action contemplated by climate friendly planners, in an attempt to save the planet, when that action might end up killing the birds preemptively?

    Muskegon County's effort to "go green" is running up against an unlikely foe: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which says the county's proposal to erect wind turbines would endanger birds.
    Jennifer Granholm's next generation energy solutions and the jobs of tomorrow that depend upon them, are coming under increasing scrutiny by environmentalists and concerned citizens wherever they are proposed.  

    Large solar farms wreak havoc upon the locations where they are installed, are fitfully inconsistent, present difficult transmission problems, demand huge public subsidies, and the solar panel manufacturing process produces huge amounts of toxins.

    Wind farms are eyesores, endanger birds and bats, present transmission problems, produce inconsistently, demand huge public subsidies for implementation, and swallow huge amounts of energy in the manufacturing process.

    Advanced battery technology is expensive, does not bypass the energy production stage, and continues America's reliance on unstable foreign regimes for energy commodities.

    Ethenol? I'm not even going to get into that again.

    We know how unpopular coal plants are. We know too that Obama has effectively choked off any increase in domestic oil drilling for at least several more years. While there is the hint of some movement in the nuclear energy arena, it is a very highly subsidized way of producing energy and any new plants that ever come on line in the next few decades will not compensate for those aging reactors that will go offline.

    So, if we are unable to rely on legacy energy sources because of their environmental impacts, and we are unable to rely on the next-gen fragments of an overall mosaic energy solution because of seagulls, tortoises and snail darters, what will we be able to depend on to provide a long term energy solution?

    Don't worry, I'm certain that someone from the government is working on it.

    < Cox expected to attend Tea Parties today | Tea Party After Action Reports >


    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit


    Display: Sort:
    And this past Winter (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by BruceB on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 07:17:00 PM EST
    windmills froze still in Minnesota!  You can't get electricity from a frozen windmill.  

    I am not French but if France can get 85% of it's energy from safe nuclear power plants that is the way for America to go!  

    The following is a letter I sent to one of our Senators, Levin or Stabenow, in response to a letter from them concerning energy for America and Americans.  I am sincerely sorry I just can't remember which one as they are one and the same:  

    Dear Senator,

    Thank you for your response!  It is deeply appreciated.  

    I do have a concern over your reply as per "natural gas used to produce electricity" however.  

    America needs to reserve natural gas for transportation and home heating!  

    My firm belief is that nuclear power should be used to generate electricity almost exclusively.  As you know, France produces nearly 85% of it's electric power using nuclear power and France has done so using a type of nuclear recycling that has not been pursued in the US and that produces almost no "nuclear waste".  

    I did not and still do not support in any way the Porkulus Bill that was passed through the House and Senate by the Democrats.  However, if the Porkulus money would have been spent to construct Nuclear Power plants in America Americans would have gotten something of long-term value to America.  As an added bonus the proceeds from the energy sales could have been used to pay back the Porkulus loan to the Chinese and the other lenders.  Imagine if America would have used the Porkulus money to construct 60 Nuclear Power plants?  Energy independence would have been ours!  

    The House, Senate and the President still have the opportunity to build upwards of 38 Nuclear Power plants for electric generation using the $500 Billion still remaining in Porkulus if they can muster the will to really promote energy independence.  That choice starts with an actual desire for America to be energy independent.  

    Question:  Do Democrats really want energy independence for America and Americans?  

    Again, I thank you sincerely for your reply.  

    Bruce Barlond


    • The French by JGillman, 04/15/2010 07:43:13 PM EST (none / 0)
    Subsidies (3.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mcdirt on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 10:27:01 AM EST
    I'm curious about conservatives' position on federal subsidies for nuclear power plants? I hear a lot of criticism about subsidies for wind and solar, but virtually nothing about the same for nukes, including the loan guarantees announced recently by President Obama. Nor are the status quo subsidies and structural competitive advantages for coal ever criticized.

    Only clean energy subsidies seem to attract that sort of scrutiny from the Right. France's nuclear power is just the sort of massive government program that I'd expect would be assailed, rather than embraced, here. As Cato Institute fellows Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren put it recently: "How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

    I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear. But I do think the same tough scrutiny being applied to renewable energy options options should be applied to nuclear power proposals.

    Hugh

    Oh those stubborn (none / 0) (#6)
    by LookingforReagan on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:17:04 PM EST
    Unintended consequences. Seems they always come back and bite the Commie-Lib Progressives right in the butt. With the mental midgits that are running this country is it any wonder we are in such a state?


    I am NOT a fan of (none / 0) (#7)
    by BruceB on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    subsidies but I am a fan of safe, clean, efficient energy generation that once funded will work for years, year round!  I don't know for a fact what the government subsidies per kilowatt hour are for the various forms of energy generation but I do know that if whatever the fine minds (I am joking here) of government choose for us if it doesn't work efficiently (examples of not working efficiently include ethanol-solar-windmills) it will be worse than worthless.  Again, I would rather the remaining Porkulus isn't spent but if it just HAS to be spent spend it on something useful that America can profit from.  Or, better yet, don't spend it!  

    The big issue (none / 0) (#8)
    by LookingforReagan on Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 06:13:39 PM EST
    In making energy cheap is to get government out of the way. While I agree that a design for a reactor should be choosen and standardized to make construction easier. Whenever I see a government subsidy for anything it tells me loud and clear that 1) it isn't going to be cheap 2) if government has to bribe me to buy it it must be junk. That goes for hybrid cars, ethonol and green energy scams such as wind or solar. If the oil companies were allowed to drill for oil where they know the oil is then it will go far to easing the energy issues in the country. But that isn't the agenda. Because of the foolishness of the Socialists in Europe our Dear Leader believes we should also pay $8.00 a gallon for gas because the Yurps do it. Let loose the retraints on production and we can fuel the world. We have more oil, coal and natural gas then nearly all of the other energy producing countries of the world combined. Oil would be cheap if the idustry is left to it's own devices. But burdensome Government regulations and increasingly onerous taxes have driven prices up and supply down. It is time to free the energy industry from the boot heel of government. When was the last time we built a new refinery?And remember not just heating oil and gasoline and diesel are made from oil. Plastics come from petroleum as do fertilizers. As oil rises in price everything will continue to rise in prices. Ask yourself how much plastic we use in this country and around the world. Since I have been in the injection molding industry I have seen consumption rise from a hundred million tons to billions of tons just in the US. There is no industry that is not served by the plastics industry. All of these things contribute to the consumption of oil. The Pentagon is saying that severe oil shortages can be expected by 2015. We don't have much time.

    Display: Sort:

    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search