The American Spectator

Jim Mulcahy| 7.10.09 @ 6:54AM

I agree wholeheartedly. The major stumbling block is our adversary legal system that is incapable of telling people to get lost. The anti-nuke crowd figured out that the way to stop them was to wait until they were built and then start suing. The accruing interest costs drove the costs of the plants to very high levels. This undermined the public's support for them.

To have a successful nuclear program it is necessary to have all litigation settled before the first shovel of dirt is turned. It would also help to standardize a design so there could be some construction efficiencies gained over time.

Nuclear power is the cleanest and, yes, safest, form of electricity there is. Keep in mind that our navy is powered by nuclear engines with the cream of our youth within 300 yards or less of the reactor. I am not aware of any accidents on these vessels.

Melvin| 7.10.09 @ 7:28AM

For any company to build any power generating plants, it literally takes 50 years of bull squeeze before one spade of earth is turned.
The environmental terrorists keep the process locked up in the court systems to the point that the company says, "The heck with it," or goes bankrupt trying.
Before this Country decides or embarks upon for generating additional power of any kind, the environmental movement either has to completely disavowed or take a flying leap by the masses.
The stake of this County's National Security hinges on a small percentage of radicals demanding that we return to the stone age and atone for our sins against mother earth.
Until that time we are going to have to be satisfied with rolling electrical blackouts soaring energy prices, freezing and sweltering homes because of a few environmental idealistic jackasses.

Liberal Reader| 7.10.09 @ 9:00AM

Excellent piece, Senator Alexander.

Nuclear power is unquestionably an important part of America's future.

With unemployment shooting for 10%, now would be a good time to start building as well.

Waste, high level and low level, needs to be given priority, and there needs to be transparency and honesty when it comes to that issue.

Anthony| 7.10.09 @ 9:33AM

What part of this obvious destructive, cynical and hypocritical thinking don't we get here? This charade is all orchestrated by the radical envionmental Left and the America hating elites who are following Obama over the cliff.
The whole idea behind Obama and the radical Left is to bring America to its knees. Can we now skip all the "rationale" discourse about energy alternatives and get to the real problem? It's us vs. them. Got it? Either they win and America goes the way of Rome, or France, (without the nukes) or we win and America once again shines a a beacon of individual freedom and private sector enterprise. Which will it be, folks??

jim rice| 7.10.09 @ 9:46AM

I'm no fan of Mr. Alexander, but I think this was a great article. My friends and I have been talking about this for years. I live near a nuclear plant, and it's no big deal. Eventually, of course, one of them will explode, but I'm cool with that too.

JerseyJ| 7.10.09 @ 9:48AM

Senator Alexander seems to think ... "We want an America in which we are not creating excessive carbon emissions and running the risk of encouraging climate change."

Senator ... I want an America where the faulty science of "climate change" is exposed for the sham excuse to tax and regulate that it is.

You Sir are part of the problem. While I applaud you for at least proposing the construction of reactors, to do so for the purpose of reducing emissions to control our effect on the global climate is insulting. Instead of fighting to educate the American Citizenry about the complete and total lack of corrolation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, you tip your hat and wink an eye to this notion of climate-catastrophe-du-jour presumably to continue in your "service" to our fine Republic.

Now I agree completely that we need to utilize the proven technology of nuclear energy. So too do we need to drill using the new technologies that present a much smaller "footprint" when drilling offshore or on for natural gas and oil. To do so for the purpose of controlling something humans have no control over is tilting at windmills (literally and figuratively in this case). Emissions and pollution are not interchangeable terms as the enviro-left has gotten many to believe nor is CO2 a pollutant.

"The main obstacle is a lingering doubt and fear in the public mind about the technology"

The main obstacle is reprocessing. If your bill has not addressed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act's ban on reprocessing spent fuel, then you are wasting our time with political posturing. Thanks, but we're looking for real solutions.

Old Texican| 7.10.09 @ 9:53AM

I've said it a thousand times.....

Build 10,000 small nuclear reactor "modules" similar to the plants used in submarines.

Our exsting manufacturing plants could build them and ship them to the sites ($$$$$)

Line them up, and crank them up, each one very tight and manageable instead of one huge concrete containment structure.

BUT

Anthony, you are precisely correct.

Matt Morehouse| 7.10.09 @ 10:01AM

Read Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker.

William| 7.10.09 @ 10:03AM

I largely agree with Anthony. My only real disagreement is that the target is not the USA specifically but rather our species.

There is no real desire from the real movers in the Green movement for 'clean air and water'. They have repeatedly expressed their disdain and hostility for homo sapiens, the desire to dictate sharp population reductions and stunted, marginal, subsistence level lives for those who remain. Their enemy is humanity itself, and some have actually urged human extinction as a desireable goal.

Greens have more to do with the genocidal malice of Pol Pot than with the conservation of a Teddy Roosevelt.

The political commissariat on the left just see the kook Greens as a useful vehicle to put in their anti freedom State. Until that is understood, we fail to engage the enemy on the substance of what they are after - totalitarian control.

PolishKnight| 7.10.09 @ 10:53AM

I mostly agree with Lamar but have this single quibble: Let's not provide false support for biomass fuels even as a concession in debate. They are environmentally destructive on their own (greens bash agriculture when used to grow foodstuffs for ranchers as destructive, yet it's ok to power our cars?) in addition to economically unfeasable. Let's face it: "biomass" technologies have been in use for thousands of years. They're called horses and oxen and simply won't fuel our modern lifestyle where a car has to have hundreds of "horses" under the hood and a typical home uses kilowatts of power to freeze food.

The climate change bill illustrates who the leftist religion is disconnected from reality. Windmills are beloved by them probably because it brings comfortable associations with socialist Holland. How can a windmill hurt Mother Gaia? Nevermind that they won't produce enough energy to build themselves, or that they are intermittant, or that the cost and energy to bring their power to urban areas offsets their capacity in the short and long term!

Anthony has a point that we need to keep in the back of our minds: The average leftist secretly wants the USA to be brought to it's knees and destroyed in order for it to stop undermining European socialism. They want us to fall on the sword. The typical leftist elite is suicidal much like the boys who were told to clear minefields by running onto them.

PolishKnight| 7.10.09 @ 11:05AM

William, your point that the greens have a genocidal agenda doesn't explain why they don't have anything against illegal immigration which is a voting powerhouse for the left and, therefore, their agenda. In theory, they should view population growth and consumption via illegal immigration as a menace, but they don't.

As the Soviet saying goes, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette but in the left's case they want to break omlettes to make omelettes. At some subconscious level, they are aware that their agenda is counter productive to itself other than one goal: Remaining in power and not having to admit they were wrong.

Alcoholics and drug users often lose everything: Their home, cars, family, etc. and in the gutter they are asked why they continue to drink or do drugs and they reply: "That's the only thing I have left and, besides, it's the only thing I loved anyway" Perhaps the average leftist and green just enjoys destroying civilization for the sake of it?

Wee Willie| 7.10.09 @ 11:15AM

Combine nuclear power with biomass. The waste heat from nuclear reactors can process biomass to product useful fuels such as methanol or ethanol. The waste from unhealthy forests as well as ordinary household waste is already collected. Transport it to a secondary plant near a nuclear reactor and produce much useful carbon neutral fuel.

Bill In Cincinnati OH

Hermit| 7.10.09 @ 11:45AM

As to the central point of his article I whole heartedly agree, we should move immediately to build nuclear plants all across the country.
If federal legislators want to help private industry in this regard they should focus their efforts at streamlining the licenses process. Regulatory and environmental legislation that enables litigation as a decade’s long weapon to delay licensing, block construction and drive up construction cost should be completely overhauled or repealed.
Senator your tone in this makes me ill to the point of nausea! With hat in hand begging forgiveness for even speaking you first pay homage to the very clap trap and trash that keeps plants from being build.
Want to create jobs in America, start designing and building nuclear plants immediately, remove the ridiculous restrictions that take so much of our domestic energy supplies off the table.
You seem to cede the point that if we don’t embrace ‘green energy’ we must be in favor of the destruction of the planet and environment. That is a false and dishonest choice that gives credence to the environmental myth.
The truth of the matter is we can develop our domestic oil without laying waste to the landscape. We can develop our domestic recourses while limiting air and water pollution. It is not an either or question and to suggest that it is dishonest.
Our adversaries are working to enslave us with chains masquerading as an energy bill. This monstrosity spits on the constitution with its creation of all manner of regulations dictated from the central government. It burdens our children and grandchildren with a tax and regulatory regimen that will limit their prosperity and freedom forever!
Sir this is not the time to be non-confrontational it is the time to engage on them every possible front in defense of our liberty and way of life.

Mattled| 7.10.09 @ 12:04PM

Ever wonder where all the Communist went after the end of the Soviet era?

The Environmental movement.

They thought the Soviet Union would bring down capitalism, but re-grouped and found out that they could do it under the disguise of "saving" the environment.

We should ask Dear Leader about it. He sought out, and received the News Party ticket in 1996.

Maybe if we had any journalists left, they would.

L. Ross| 7.10.09 @ 12:20PM

I agree with all the major points of this article except for the summation.
"There seem to be two things holding us back:

1. An exaggerated fear of nuclear technology.

2. A failure to appreciate just how different nuclear is from other technologies -- how its tremendous energy density translates into a vanishingly small environmental footprint. "

I feel the only thing that is holding us back is the mainstream media. If they continually present nuclear energy as unstable and dangerous, that is what people will "know". Most people don't enjoy science, especially physics. I doubt that one person in ten could answer this question correctly.

"Have you ever seen an unshielded fusion reactor?"

The correct answer is, of course, the sun and all other stars. This kind of perspective would seem the whole concept of nuclear power seem much less dangerous to the layman. 'Course, Katie Couric probably wouldn't understand the point. Let's face it, your average news reporter doesn't understand the first thing about science, and has been taught by innumerable movies to distrust scientists. Why the major lesson from 3 mile island wasn't "the containment vessel was successful and the plant continues to produce energy" is beyond me. The only reason nuclear energy is beyond the pale is that the MSM treats it like they treat Sarah Palin, with incomprehending contempt.

Mattled| 7.10.09 @ 12:28PM

L. Ross,

Environmentalistas, as well as the so-called MSM, can't even name the number one CO2 emitter.

Number 2 CO2 producer?

I'm sure a majority will say people--- a few will say plants.

But I am sure they will not know how much CO2 is produced due to humans nor will they know who or what produces the majority of this so-called "pollutant".

cdc| 7.10.09 @ 12:31PM

L Ross,
While the sun is an ongoing fusion reaction, it is shielded by about 8 light minutes of space, a couple miles of low density matter, and a strong magnetic field. Without all of this shielding the biosphere would be severely degraded.
As you say science is held in contempt by large portions of the population, a point I have raised several times on these boards to resounding criticism.

Pat| 7.10.09 @ 12:41PM

"I live near a nuclear plant, and it's no big deal. Eventually, of course, one of them will explode, but I'm cool with that too. "

Explode? What leads you to that conclusion?

Robert Longley| 7.10.09 @ 12:54PM

Isn't Sec. Chu a big backer of nuclear power? Yet, if "nuclear" is even mentioned more than once in Waxman-Markey, I'd be surprised. I live about 20 miles from the decommissioned Rancho Seco plant in Sacramento. It could be back on line in 24 months. It doesn't scare me a bit.

Deano| 7.10.09 @ 1:05PM

Take it a step further Senator. Use that nuclear-generated electricity to separate sea water into hydrogen and oxygen. Run all vehicles on hydrogen fuel cells. The challenges: recycling spent nuclear fuel rods, a hydrogen distribution network, and more efficient fuel cells. Do-able. Then we back off significantly from all fossil fuels.

Anthony| 7.10.09 @ 1:14PM

Pardon my anger and disgust, but Sen. Alexander and his Republican establishment collegues, either blindly or cowardly, refuse to see and confront the evil, yes I said evil. that is directly in their face. Sen. Alexander, in his rational bromide for nuclear energy, similar to President Bush's "New Tone", insists on maintaining a civil and polite patina to a discourse laden with hate, irrationality and just plain ill will and contempt for our American way of life. I suspect, like President Bush, that Alexander is not quite up to for this fight. Ironically, Iraq was an easier war to justify; acknowledging the precipice that America stands on today, not such an easy battle to engage. After all, being one of the beltway insiders and a careerist at heart, to acknowledge the titanic struggle that is taking place in our society, is to take on a battle that the Alexander's of this world are not willing to do. Don't want to upset the status quo, no matter how dangerous things are becoming. So they tinker at the edges, as they attempt to slow the progress of Obama's and the radical Left's enviornmental and socialistic makeover for America, and call it a good day's work at the capitol.
Meanwhile, we rubes see what is, and where all this is ultimately leading; we wait and we wait for our leaders to take a stand. We will be waiting for a long, long ,time, just ask Gen. Powell, he's already switched sides. No, this battle will be ours to wage.

Choey| 7.10.09 @ 1:20PM

I have no problem at all with nuclear power so long as we also build breeder reactors to reprocess the fuel like France does. Then I would like to nukes built first to plug the holes in any shortfall of electricity and then to replace coal burners starting with the oldest and dirtiest, not because of any CO2 nonsense but simply because of the other pollutants that coal burning creates including the radioactive materials it emits into the area.

rss| 7.10.09 @ 1:27PM

Global warming? Climate change? Are you serious, Lamar?

Tell Barry al Hussein to talk to an astronomer about the cycles of the sun. It has a huge effect on earth's clmate.

Anthony| 7.10.09 @ 1:29PM

P.S. Well said Hermit, you get it.

Tim| 7.10.09 @ 1:48PM

A great primer on new reactor designs:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/3760347.html?page=5

Al Adab| 7.10.09 @ 3:07PM

Here we have another example of Govt. Regulation (ostensibly for our own good) getting in the way of a solution to a problem. Extreme environmentalism, as opposed to Conservation, simply becomes a totalitarian ploy. Hydro, which they oppose, is a perfect example of clean, renewable etc. Hurts the fish don't you know
Once again our colleague Old Texican is on point. The Navy has a lengthy and admirably record of operating nuclear plants. Other companies do as well. The Dresden plant in Illinois and the Palo Verde in Arizona are but two examples. Lets put the power grid under DOD auspices and build. A hundred large or thousands of smaller plants would be a major step forward. Maintaining our lives here in America is after all a national security issue. Drill too of course. Shale and coal as well. the secret is remove restrictions and move forward.
Didn't Walter Williams tell us less government means more freedom?

David J| 7.10.09 @ 3:38PM

But progressives do not want power (electricity). The real adgenda is to shut down business/capitalism. That is why Obama will not look at Nuclear Power. He knows it works. Progressives will only look at wind and sources that they know will not work, yet. This is about political power and Marxism. The energy thing is just a front.
Of course we should be building Nuclear Power plants and drilling here for our own oil and Natural gas. Progressives want to shut down CAPITALISM/BUSINESS. THAT is why they will not consider energy sources known to work, no matter how environmentally friendly (environment is simply an excuse for socialism).
Progressives tell the truth about NOTHING!

vc| 7.10.09 @ 3:44PM

Fissibles, thorium and uranium, will run out sooner than expected even if the plants are efficient and don't require pointless waste storage (no waste, no problem). More research is require to devlop viable fusion sources, otherwise we're just stalling for time.

Old Texican| 7.10.09 @ 3:48PM

Al Adab, Hermit, Anthony, et al:

These communist bastards, and their willing fools will push us too far one day soon.

If they should shut Rush down over night...he is already positioned on the internet with his 24/7 program to continue his mission...some 30 million people will be completely pithed off. (and scared).

If sweet Sarah reloads and comes on into the national arena...and they shut her down...another 30 million ADDITIONAL Americans will get pithed off.
(etc etc etc)
I am pretty well convinced now that these communist bastards will continue pushing until things get very very bad for all of us.

Somehow, I think that may be necessary. Remember..."action (equal) reaction".

The reality is that a very few of us (percentage wise) have built America. Most folks just tag along for the ride and grumble a lot.

Let's not forget that!

A lot may be asked of us in the days ahead.
Have you guys counted the costs?

abc| 7.10.09 @ 3:49PM

If the environment is just cover for the socialist, then the republicans should be able to come up with a platform that will lure the conscientious environmentalists away from socialist liberals.
Lot's of people prefer to breath fresh air rather than smog, enjoy pastoral splendor to city squalor, and actually do value wildlife from butterflies to bald eagles. So why not try to win their votes and maybe an election.

Melvin| 7.10.09 @ 3:51PM

Almost everyone who has posted has excellent ideas, but the main point to this whole energy scenario is, that the Environmental and NIMBY movement will not allow us to build wind farms, solar collectors, nuclear plants, gasification of clean coal and clean power plants or any other energy producing plant. This Country is stuck in a zero sum situation right now.
Any good viable idea that is suggested is shot down even before it bears any fruit. For crying Almost everyone who has posted has excellent ideas, but the main point to this whole energy scenario is, that the Environmental and NIMBY movement will not allow us to build wind farms, solar collectors, nuclear plants, gasification of clean coal and clean power plants or any other energy producing plant. This Country is stuck in a zero sum situation right now.
Any good viable idea that is suggested is shot down even before it bears any fruit. For crying out loud the Republicans are branded with the moniker of the Party of, "No," this name also applies to the Environmentalists and NIMBIES as well.out loud the Republicans are branded with the moniker of the Party of, "No," this name also applies to the Environmentalists and NIMBIES as well.

Melvin| 7.10.09 @ 3:54PM

I apologize for the bizarrely formatted post, spell checker gone berserk.

Skeptic| 7.10.09 @ 4:03PM

Senator,
Your words are spoken like a true politician. You seem to think we need to be saved by the Global Warming boogy man and your proposal is the way. Frankly, you are 100% right in that this country (which pioneered nuclear power) has essentially abandoned it due to lies and distortions. However it's time we cull our arguments from lies and distortions and declare global warming what it is...a hoax. But no, that takes courage which politicians dare not cross. This is why you use global warming as your argument *for* nuclear power. Ok, less carbon from a nuclear plant is obvious. There are really good reasons we should build 100 plants in the next two years not twenty. But global warming...? Let's be courageous and honest next time.

Old Texican| 7.10.09 @ 4:11PM

Never fear, Melvin.
I do one quick manual edit and...fire! (grin)

Your points are well taken in any event.

I don't have a problem with NIMBIES. We can educate them easily enough...especially about nuke plants...and NUKE WASTE!

OK boring here but it needs to be said:
6 feet of dirt is equal to 3 inches of lead shielding.

Don't move the waste rods. Bury them on site ...twenty feet down...in glass jars with six inch thick walls.
Those are on the shelf right now. They don't rust or corrode, they do not degrade over time, and they are virtually indestructible.

What is really cool is that some day if we run short of raw ore...our grand kids can dig the "waste" up and use it again.

db| 7.10.09 @ 4:36PM

Better than reprocessing or burying waste materials is to simply build a continuous system like a molten salt reactor. Fissibles go in; energy comes out. Whatever radioactive waste generated is comparitively easy to handle.

Old Texican| 7.10.09 @ 4:50PM

db

Very few here understand all that...and do not want to understand all of that.

Shhhhh!

Keep it simple stupid. (present company appreciated) grin.

Al Adab| 7.10.09 @ 6:32PM

Texican, db, Melvin,
As you note it isn't the science or technology but rather ideology, politics and faith (from the Faithless ones) which prevent America from achieving her needed goals. Maybe FDR was right in one sense, "...all we have to fear is fear itself, blind unreasoning terror." Do not take counsel of your fears and lets push until we do indeed move on.

Anthony| 7.10.09 @ 9:00PM

Old Texican :
Tell me, what exactly does your last sentence "have you guys counted the costs" mean exactly? If it means what I think, then as they say in your favorite Texas card game, I'm all in. Especially if "Sweet Sarah" takes the lead. What greater cause does a man or woman have than for their country?

Ron| 7.11.09 @ 12:18AM

Fast tracking approval for 100 nuke plants would cost little as would guarantees for funding the construction. 30 years of abundant cheaper power is real stimulus. Roads and bike paths are one shot deals and really never stimulate beyond the initial job.

RockyTop| 7.11.09 @ 1:35AM

I am for using all the means at our disposal and they are many, for America to meet the energy challenges of the future, nuclear is obviously one of them. There is also domestic oil and gas. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and should utilize that resource as well with any new Manhattan projects spending at least at portion towards new technologies to make extraction and use more environmentally efficient and effective.

I have read so many good ideas from many sources concerning more than our energy policies. There are many foundations and think tanks as well as many wise, educated and knowledgeable people in the private sector and a few left in government too I think. I find myself nodding my head in agreement as I do much reading, much as I did reading many of these posts. So there is not a lack of ideas from conservatives as has been suggested by liberals; quite the opposite. I am so impressed and so proud of the intellectual firepower that has in the last few years been brought to bear upon the faulty logic of liberalism.

I am not sure but seem to remember that it was Robert Bork who gave an example of the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats would suggest that they go out and burn down every house in the town and the Republicans would throw up their hands and say “whoa! We will not cooperate in any such venture, let us sit down and be reasonable why don’t we? Let us instead go out and burn a few down each night.”

I agree that there are many impressive suggestions within the posts here and realize what obviously many of our elected officials apparently have forgotten; they are elected to represent their constituents.
For a long time I have been a passive participant in this country. Oh, I did my duty and voted, but that was about it I must admit. I read and when possible discussed various issues with family and friends and once when carrying my family on a trip to D.C made a stop to our Congressman’s office for a visit, how quaint huh? This has now all changed.
Since the current administration has been in office along with an emboldened and crowing congress, there have been so many large issues cast forth and legislation passed that it nearly takes the breath away when one looks at the scope and breadth of their consequences upon our country. Never in my life have I made so many phone calls and written so many letters as I have in the last several weeks; this whirlwind half of a year of brewing chaos that I have been witness to. All seemingly to no avail.

To say that I am annoyed would be an understatement. I am mad. But what can I do? I know that I am not alone; I witnessed that at a recent “tea party.” I understand I am not alone by the impassioned pleas I read in blog posts and the anguished frustration I hear from callers on talk radio. Many of the voices I hear or read pour out the same repetitious litany of explanation, question and rebuke; why they are angry, why isn’t something being done and why won’t my elected representative listen to me?

I have some ideas about that but they provide little solace to me. Much has been made of the so-called “clash of civilizations” in description of the conflict of the West with Islam. I do not necessarily disagree with the analogy but point out that we have had, and increasingly so, just as worthy a challenge within our own country as liberalism marches triumphically ahead unchecked.

I agree particularly with Anthony’s comment and Hermit as to the real issues framing any issue coming from conservatives. There is a book: “The Freshmen: What happened to the Republican Revolution? The answer is obvious from a historical viewpoint. Old Texican, if you are from Texas, the Raven was one of my childhood heroes. I understand your comment. There are tea parties spring up all over, I encourage any and all concerned to participate, there needs to be more of this type of expression and perhaps ultimately if the electorate is continually ignored then civil disobedience would be necessary as I think Old Texican is referring to, with a price of course. You may call them environmental whackos but they have the bravery of their convictions as they are handcuffed and arrested for their acts.

It is not too late as yet as 2010 approaches to correct the balance of legislative power being wielded against us all. But I will worry about tomorrow if and when it arrives since it is today in which I live so I will say this for what it is worth; I am a native of Tennessee therefore a constituent of Senator Alexander. I am but one small insignificant voice of millions in this great state but this voice would provide respectful direction to my elected representative to please put down the lighter and tell the opposing side that you do not intend to participate in any house burnings.
We need some leaders, not followers. That prompts me to remark about Sarah Palin. I kind of like her, she reminds me a little bit of a man I miss; Ronald Reagan.
Sorry for the long post fellas, I just had to get it off my chest. Thanks.

Freya| 7.11.09 @ 1:50AM

"That is why Obama will not look at Nuclear Power."

Guess what? He is.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/08/nuclear-power-obama-us

Frogamander| 7.11.09 @ 7:52AM

If nuclear power is so great and successful, then let it stand on its own financial feet and not rely on socialist policies. Time to stop the loan guarantee subsidies, production tax credits, accident insurance, etc. Once we level the playing filed and stop big-government involvement then we'll see where the financial market thinks nukes come out. Will everyone agree that we should let the free market work and end the nuclear hand outs?

Frogamander| 7.11.09 @ 7:53AM

If nuclear power is so great and successful, then let it stand on its own financial feet and not rely on socialist policies. Time to stop the loan guarantee subsidies, production tax credits, accident insurance, etc. Once we level the playing filed and stop big-government involvement then we'll see where the financial market thinks nukes come out. Will everyone agree that we should let the free market work and end the nuclear hand outs?

Thomas Chmelik| 7.11.09 @ 8:00AM

Your stupidy, why? Well... because the great smoky mountains aren't smoky because of man made pollution, yes it may have added to the effect, but "The name "Smoky" comes from the natural fog that often hangs over the range and presents as large smoke plumes from a distance" (Houk 19)

Great Smoky Mountains: A Natural History Guide
by Rose Houk

Please read about things before you use them as an argument agaisnt manmade pollution. Because the beauty of the "Great Smokey Mountains" derive from a natural phenomena, not manmade pollution.

chris king| 7.11.09 @ 8:19AM

i agree with building Nuke power plants but his constant references to low carbon as if oil and coal are contributing to "global warming" shows that this guy is drinking the koolaid of the fools in Congress.

Phil Hoey| 7.11.09 @ 9:00AM

If the French can do it - why can't we? With nuclear the French more than meet their EU CO2 requirements!!!!

Ed Laskie| 7.11.09 @ 9:37AM

I'm for building Nuclear Plants. I think as conservatives we need to be careful in not being framed as anti-environment. The real argument is using bad science to redistribute wealth. Global warming has not been proved as a fact and if so, then humans as the main cause are doubtful. Nature has much more influence with volcanoes, insects and even the sun. We don’t understand this fully. We do have evidence how excess carbon could cause a warming effect. The biggest argument is the weight of carbon removed that was sequestered in the earth and put into the atmosphere by burning coal and oil. But to make stupid laws to destroy our economy and dose nothing to improve the environment is insane and criminal. Smarter ways are at hand. The waste produced in agricultural can be turned in to Bio-Char (charcoal) and used as mix fertilizer and give 20% increase in yields. Not to be confused with turning corn into fuel, that was another dumb idea. Bio-char is win-win, the smoke produced is contained and used as fuel to make the bio-char and by products of Bio-Oil and excess gas (methane) used for electrical generation or other. This is a good example of smart environmental business. Problem with liberals is they are anti-human when they think of nature. Humans are part of nature. We don’t have to let mountain lions eat our kids to live in harmony with the environment. Conservatives need to take the lead on smart environmental policy and stop letting the liberals paint us as polluters.

Roy| 7.11.09 @ 9:38AM

re:RockyTop:
"if the electorate is continually ignored"

"The electorate" is not continually ignored; YOU(and me) are. Why? Because the majority don't agree with us(or at least, didn't in november 2008). Funny how that works in a democracy. That's why all the talk of "Fight! Do something!" is pretty much just self-indulgent hot air. Granted there's plenty of vote fraud but it did not make the difference. The only type of "fighting" that makes any difference is fighting for higher poll numbers.

Marc Jeric| 7.11.09 @ 10:14AM

Environmentalism is a cult of death; when one understands that everything else becomes clear. Our eco-nazis want to reduce the population of the globe from 6.5 biliion to the sustainable one billion. Why is France energy independent? Their nuclear energy commission allows only qualified commentators to intervene; we allow housewives to delay and negate any new nuclear power plant by interminable law suits. I know - I defended the safety of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant in Texas against a housewife's accusations; that intervention added one billion to the plant cost.

Marc Jeric| 7.11.09 @ 10:17AM

Mr. Alexander is apparently accepting the idea of man-caused global warming; he is so wrong!
1) There was first in the 1970's the globaloney cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the globaloney warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies;
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmoshere contains 10,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/4 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock and the swamps (or as the enviro-nazis call those "wetlands") vastly surpasses the influence of CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our enviro-nazis tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a permanent hold on power should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM!!!

john moore| 7.11.09 @ 10:44AM

There is the technology today to modualise mini nuclear plants that can be up and running much sooner than the standard sized plants which take years to build. These modules can be added to as the need arises and so can be placed in strategic areas. Why this is not discussed more, I have no idea.

Dave Jones| 7.11.09 @ 2:02PM

The biggest problem that we face now, is that most people don’t see that we have a problem and that they won’t as long as they have A/C Heat and a car. So let the Watermelons ( Green on the outside and all RED on the inside) do what they want. And in a couple of more years when the demand for power exceeds the supply nationwide, and Mr. and Mrs. America comes home from and find out that there ain’t no A/C or heat in their homes due to a rotating Black Out statewide. When Business start planning on Rapidly moving to Countries where there is a supply of power that will enable them to stay in business, places like Mexico, China and India. Then we will vote out every single watermelon and start to build power plants, not in multiple years but in a couple of years nationwide.

Roger from Solar Power Facts| 7.11.09 @ 10:27PM

I agree with almost all of your post including the use of nuclear power, but I don't think using renewables will require all the great outdoors to be covered with solar panels and wind turbines.

We need to be smarter about the way we work and live. We need to use less energy and pour research dollars into developing long term clean energy that is space efficient as well as lower cost.

And what about the wars America is engaged in? How much less energy would the US need if it were not in Iraq? A hell of a lot less, that's for sure.

andyandersonusa| 7.11.09 @ 11:46PM

How can the schools produce high quality minds to operate these systems when the US Navy has trouble getting enough people to run its reactors? They abandoned and scrapped their entire class of nuclear cruisers! Abandon the foolishness of embracing the lowest common denominator, no child left behind, and the intolerance against excellence. Dump political correctness if you want to build nukes.

Michael L. Hauschild| 7.12.09 @ 7:16AM

I am typing this on nuclear power. Our reactor here in the grid has functioned perfectly for decades with no accidents. My kilowatt rate is one of the lowest in the country. Those that misrepresent the economic, safety, and long term stability of nuclear power are simply mistaken.

Richard Baker| 7.12.09 @ 9:47AM

To think that the French, of all people, found a way to deal with nuclear power. We're the country that invented the process and we seem incapable of that which the French have done. A large part of it is political science and the legal profession in concert.

Roy| 7.12.09 @ 12:11PM

re:Jeric: The problem is defining the argument as "whether or not there is anthropogenic global warming" is way, way, way too narrow a basis. First of all, anybody can read a couple of paragraphs and see that yep, if you add infinite CO2 to the atmosphere, the earth's temperature sure will go up. But by how much? How fast? How much CO2 will have to be emitted for the atmospheric concentration to increase that much? What are the likely effects of the temperature increases that may happen?

If you stake out the ground of "there is no anthropogenic global warming" that is a position much harder to defend than "we should not spend umpty trillion dollars solely and exclusively and without remainder to feel good about ourselves for having "done something"(actually nothing) to avoid ridiculously dubious prophecies of apocalyptic globodoom".

shuriken| 7.12.09 @ 12:32PM

Very interesting post. It may be useful in many ways. Thanks.

Aaron| 7.12.09 @ 8:16PM

Roger from Solar Power Facts... "And what about the wars America is engaged in? How much less energy would the US need if it were not in Iraq? A hell of a lot less, that's for sure." Silly little man, keep sticking your head in the sand and all the creepy bad men will go away. Let them keep knocking down our buildings and stand back and watch them attack our infastructure, that will REALLY save a lot of energy on our part! Lets all hold hands and skip across the mountain tops singing do-re-mi and picking flowers. Good God man, go hunker down in your straw bale house and fire up the 12 volt T.V. to watch the evening MSNBC and don't forget to turn on the drip irrigation to the Mary Jane before you turn in.

FeralCat| 7.13.09 @ 2:17AM

A battery powered car in every garage and a nuclear power plant in every county.

David Herr| 7.13.09 @ 4:48AM

Senator Alexander, excellent article.

One option you didn't discuss is major uprating of current reactors to produce more power. Research is already being done on new fuel rods which have a hollow chamber in the center, allowing coolant to pass across more surface are of the fuel rod (inside and out). Accelerating this research could improve efficiency and safety. Other research could also be done on other aspects of our current reactor fleet that could significantly increase their power output, and reduce refueling outages. See the blog 'Next Big Future" for some very well documented details.

Another aspect of R&D that should be pursued is the MSR, or Molten Salt Reactor, also known as the LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor). This reactor concept, pioneered in the late 60's and early 70's at Oak Ridge, involves dissolving the fertile materials into a molten salt, and processing the material to remove impurities so that the reaction can continue. By employing abundant thorium (which transmutes into uranium 233, which then fissions), the MSR vastly expands the range of fuels available for nuclear power. This reactor type can also be used to unlock the 95-99% of energy that remains in "spent" fuel rods from traditional light water reactors, solving the "nuclear waste" issue without having to go through Senator Reid to get Yucca Mountain built.

Since it operates at atmospheric pressure, the MSR is a lot easier on equipment, and much safer to operate. At high temperatures, the reaction automatically slows.

An additional benefit of the MSR is that it can be designed and deployed in small modules that are produced in factories and shipped to the reactor site -- a massive savings over today's 1 gigawatt light water reactors.

You can find out much more about the MSR/LFTR at the "Energy from Thorium" blog run by Kirk Sorenson, and "Nuclear Green," a blog by Charles Barton Jr., the son of one of the original researchers on the Oak Ridge MSR Research Project.

So, by all means, let us build 100 (or more) new reactors, but let us do some rigorous R&D first, and build the right type of reactors.

As to the legal and political issues, those could be radically reduced, by focusing on placing any new reactors on existing reactor sites, where a lot of the legal and environmental hurdles have already been met, and where most local residents appreciate the facilities.

resale- second hand- & used me| 7.13.09 @ 5:46AM

I am not much into reading, but somehow I got to read lots of articles on your blog.
Its amazing how interesting it is for me to visit you very often :)
Please come visit my site
discount store when you got time.

Robert Hargraves| 7.13.09 @ 11:38AM

The senator is 100% on track. It's time to start building nuclear power plants using the ready-to-go new technologies that GE and Westinghouse have invested billions in.

We can also address future nuclear fuel availability and waste issues by investing in R&D for advanced technologies, such as the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. Search YouTube for "aim high thorium" for a tutorial introduction to the technology and benefits.

Ed Hardy Wallets| 7.24.09 @ 2:20AM

i like

cheap handbags| 7.25.09 @ 7:10PM

We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica  Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica  Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest  Replica Hermes handbags   at low price you'll find anywhere.

george| 7.29.09 @ 2:33AM

LV Bequia Leather handbag , commonly referred to as

Louis Vuitton Bequia, or sometimes shortened to

Louis Vuitton Classic China Run handbags has become one of the most

Louis Vuitton Classic China Run luxury brands.

outlet louis vuittongood

lv outletl like

louis vuitton outletsgood

louis vuitton outlet storesnice

ed| 8.20.09 @ 2:30AM

Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes

dropshippngwatch| 9.2.09 @ 6:17AM

Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Rolex Watches
Replica A.Lange&Sohne; Watches
Replica Alain Silberstein Watches
Replica Audemars Piguet Watches
Replica B.R.M Watches
Replica Baume & Mercier Watches
Replica Bell&Ross; Watches
Replica BMW Watches
Replica Breguet Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com

Albert I| 9.4.09 @ 9:13PM

"Somehow I think we can handle the remaining nuclear waste, Gumboot. Japan and Europe seem to be doing all right and they have a lot more plants than the United States especially considering the land area."

Your confidence may last you a lifetime.
The waste will last a million lifetimes without any "somehow" to support it.
It won't be either of us that has to do the spade work.

123123| 9.15.09 @ 6:40AM

wedding dress factory
wedding dress shops

fjdskj| 9.29.09 @ 4:17AM

shanghai massage
turntable bearings

Nike SB sale| 10.1.09 @ 12:50PM

Your idea is novel,I like it,Thank you for sharing.Waiting for your new ideas!

Best Air Conditioner Reviews| 10.1.09 @ 7:38PM

The nuclear waste is radioactive meaning it is emitting tons of free radical particles in a very chaotic manner. If there was a way to harness the energy inherent in this process, even the waste from a Nuclear power plant may be a source of power in and of itself, as well!

fjdsk| 10.16.09 @ 2:25AM

shanghai massage
turntable bearings

dfb| 11.20.09 @ 10:25AM

ehr