The Truth About Energy

Please e-mail me if you have comments or questions. I will answer questions if possible. Lets have some dialogue.

Mythology distracts us everywhere. For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie: contrived and dishonest. But the myth: persistent, persuasive, unrealistic.

Welcome to my energy web site. In this site I reveal the truth about energy that concerns the future of our country and the world. Also I discuss the religions, and environmentalists, who strongly espouse energy policies that I think would return us to the third world living conditions.

The blue underlined links on the left column forms a table of contents (TOC) of this Web site as well as an easy way to go to any Page by simply clicking on the link. Be sure and read about the Fast Breeder Reactor and Fuel Cycles.

Nuclear power employing Fast Breeder Reactors offers the world an infinite supply of energy. But Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter stopped its progress as payback to the environmentalists who voted for them. Carter also prevented recycle of fuel coming out of commercial reactors.

President Clinton actually pledged to remove all funding from nuclear power research during his nationally televised inaugural address. And he kept his promise. Clinton ordered the Experimental Breeder Reactor power plant (EBR II) shutdown. And he ordered that EBR II be destroyed..

As payoff to the environmentalists, President Bill Clinton shutdown Argonne National Lab's Experimental Breeder Reactor (EBR II) in Idaho and poisoned the reactor assembly with a carboniferous material so it can never be started again. This is one of the most egregious acts ever performed by a mentally sick president.

Obama is also beholden to he environmentalists and cannot restore the Fast Breeder (FIR) project. If Obama said he would restore Fast Breeders, he would not be elected dog catcher by the environmentalists.

Nearly 100% of the uranium that is introduced into the existing commercial nuclear power plant fuel cycles could be used in Fast Breeder Reactors to produce an infinite amount of energy.

Moreover, if we could reprocess our present stockpiles of depleted uranium currently stored at the sites of our 104 commercial nuclear reactors and also the depleted Uranium Hexafloride (DUF6) from the bomb program and apply these in Fast Breeder Reactors it could produce all of our Nations electricity for many years without the need for additional uranium mining or CO₂ production.

It is amazing that we now have to bury and throw away the nuclear fuel discharged from commercial reactors and spend billions of dollars to purchase natural gas, oil, and coal to generate electrical energy. We should conserve these fossil fuels for other uses.

How long will nuclear energy last? These facts come from a 1983 article by Bernard Cohen. Nuclear energy, assuming breeder reactors, will last for several billion years, i.e. as long as the sun is in a state to support life on earth

Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kWh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.

We thus conclude that all the world’s energy requirements for the remaining 5×109 yr of existence of life on Earth could be provided by breeder reactors without the cost of electricity rising by as much as 1% due to fuel costs. This is consistent with the definition of a “renewable” energy source in the sense in which that term is generally used. Nuclear fusion has been advertised as a method for “burningthe seas.” http://www.energyplanU'SA.comis an alternative method for “burning the seas,” and it has the considerable advantage that the technology for doing it is in hand.

An other Web site I encourage my readers to visit is Robert 'Moen's Site See Robert Moen's site

This site is very well done and full of important energy related information. Another site to visit is the: :

Good News: It Looks like the US will get the nuclear power plant revolution under way.

Words taken from a paper written by Jim Muckerheide and Ted Rockwell of the Radiation, Science and Health organization.

"Renewable" and "sustainable " energy means: energy sources that are available indefinitely-- cannot be depleted. Our fossil fuel supplies, coal, natural gas, and oil are not sustainable. As we use them, they are not being renewable at a sufficient rate to be sustainable.

With renewable seawater supplies of uranium and large terrestrial sources of thorium plus fuel recycling and breeder reactors, more nuclear fuel will be created than we consume each year, for millions of years.

Pork-Filled Stimulus Bill Fails to Tackle Real Energy Issues

by Sen. James Inhofe

As Democrats in Congress cobble together an obscenely massive spending bill, tens of billions of these dollars are intended to be force fed into so-called green and renewable energy programs under the pretense of job creation. There are also hundreds of millions more being proposed for climate-change research under the dubious banner of stimulating the economy.

Below is what Obama just said.

The president used his first address to a joint session of Congress to underscore the economic logic of pursuing the clean energy economy with everything the United States has got.

“The country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century,” he said. We invented solar technology, but we’ve fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it. New plug-in hybrids roll off our assembly lines, but they will run on batteries made in Korea. Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders - and I know you don’t either. It is time for America to lead again

Yes and his Democratic base will never tell him the clean renewable energy systems will produce very little energy and are very capital costly to deploy.

§ Republican energy bill will call for 100 new reactors
House Republicans planned to introduce an energy bill today that calls for 100 reactors to be built in the next 20 years as well as drilling onshore, offshore and in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "This is an alternative that takes us in the direction of energy independence and a clean environment without the national energy tax being offered by the Democrats," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

Senator pushes for nuclear power.

Alexander will ask government for 100 new plants.

By Michael Collins KNS 25May09

Washington-U S. Sen. Lamarr Alexander will call this week on the federal
government to allow construction of 100 nuclear power plants over the next
20 years in what will be a preview of the Republican game plan for
developing a national energy policy.

Congress has been working for weeks on climate change legislation, but
Senate Republicans argue that congressional Democrats and President Barack
Obama are putting too much emphasis on renewable energy, such as wind and
solar, and giving short shrift to nuclear power.

"We are getting too much lip service and not enough action from the Obama
administration on nuclear power, and the impression is being left that we
can run this big, complex country on electricity from the wind, the sun and
the earth," Alexander said.

Obama is also fell for Cap and Trade of CO2. Below is a partial piece about it.

Cap-and-Trade Is Bad

A STEALTH TAX ON ENERGY

BY THOMAS PYLE

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS TEAM HAVE MADE it clear that a cap-and-trade system will be an important tool for the new administration to provide green jobs and reduce the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions. But the real purpose of cap-and-trade is to increase the cost of energy. The European experience shows that countries lose their enthusiasm once they experience the actual costs of these programs. Implementing cap-and-trade now would kick the U.S. economy while it's already down.

On the surface, cap-and-trade sounds like a straightforward procedure to reduce total greenhouse-gas emissions. In consultation with scientists and economists, the federal government picks annual quotas for total emissions and then issues a corresponding number of permits. Parties are then free to trade their permits at prices determined on a market

Cap-and-trade sounds pleasant in theory, but in practice it has been a failure. Europe has the largest cap-and-trade system in the world, and instead of leading to a decrease in emissions, Phase I, between 2005 and 2007, led to a 1.9 percent increase in greenhouse-gas emissions. What's worse, electricity bills in much of Europe have substantially increased because of cap-and-trade policies.

Russia plans to close the nuclear fuel cycle and develop new commercial Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor power plants.

"We need to go over to new technological standards. I have in mind the closed fuel cycle and the development of a commercial fast neutron reactor. This should be the objective of a specialized program called Nuclear Energy Technologies of a New Generation. Preparation of it should finish by November of this year," Putin told a conference in Elektrostal on the future of the country's nuclear industry.

The program would involve, among other things, a set of projects to close the nuclear fuel cycle, which includes processing irradiated nuclear fuel removed from nuclear power plants that remain in operation and from nuclear submarines, and organizing the manufacture of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel to be used in fast neutron reactors.

MOX fuel is a blend of oxides of plutonium and natural, reprocessed or depleted uranium. Fast neutron reactors would enable the nuclear industry to produce practically no waste.

Russian has many years of experience with fast Breeder Reactors. Construction has started on Beloyarsk-4 which is the first BN-800, a new, more powerful (880 MWe) FBR, which is actually the same overall size as BN-600. It has improved features including fuel flexibility - U+Pu nitride, MOX, or metal, and with breeding ratio up to 1.3. It has much enhanced safety and improved economy - operating cost is expected to be only 15% more than VVER. It is capable of burning up to 2 tonnes of plutonium per year from dismantled weapons and will test the recycling of minor actinides in the fuel. Further BN-800 units are planned.

My comments: Russia is going to the Fast Breeder Reactor and the closed fuel cycle that has practically no waste. They are now 50 years ahead of the US, thanks to Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and the environmentalists in the US.

The greatest wrong perpetrated against mankind, that has been committed
since man first appeared on earth, has transpired. The US Department of
Energy (US DOE), with a group of it's contractors, the knowledge and
acceptance of our US representatives and many government organizations, has
been in the process of destroying fuel (Depleted Uranium Hexafloride - DUF6)
which could have been used to supply the total US electrical energy needs
for over 700 years. This fuel could have been used in a US developed,
reliable and US development funded power source. This fuel (DUF6) was the
greatest amount of such fuel available to any country in the world.

The following paper, 'US ENERGY', describes the US developed reliable power
source that could have been fueled with the destroyed DUF6 fuel to supply
the US with over 700 years of total US electrical energy needs. Attached to
this e-mail is a chart that describes that fuel (DUF6) resource versus other
reasonable fuel resources.

Is this the way we want to continue to run this country? Future US
generations will be the ones to suffer if we continue to perpetuate such
wrongs against mankind.
_______________________________________________________________________________________ Gretchen RandallDate: October 15, 2008

Issue: While Democrats and Northeast Republicans in the U.S. Congress block all pro-energy development plans, representatives from the Russian energy company, Gazprom, are visiting Alaska to talk about investment opportunities in a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Canada. According to the New York Times, Gazprom is also interested in “investing in other energy initiatives in the state” and already has invested in a liquefied natural gas plant in Canada.

Other countries such as China are working to guarantee an adequate supply of oil and gas to fuel their economies. China, specifically, is establishing a direct supply of oil from countries such as the Sudan and Venezuela. This will lower the supply of oil available to the rest of the world and force prices higher.

Comment: Our leaders are counting on conservation and windmills to power our country while our competitors are locking in oil and natural gas supplies for the future.

Omaha electric rates to increase average of 14.6 percent

Sep 9 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Steve Jordon Omaha World-Herald, Neb. Starting Jan. 1, Omahans likely will get their biggest electricity rate increase in 35 years.

The increased costs of coal and of hauling it from Wyoming to Nebraska are behind a plan to raise average electrical bills for homeowners by 11 percent and for businesses as much as 27 percent, with the overall average 14.6 percent.

OPPD's last rate increase above 10 percent was in 1973, a time when the nation also was struggling with energy costs.

My Comment: For a nuclear plant they do not have to haul a train load of coal per day to fuel the plant. Nuclear plants use only use a few kilograms of fuel per day.

It has been reported that electricity prices are increasing in the United States, largely because the cost of coal and natural gas fuels are increasing. A major utility says that it is unlikely to expect such prices to fall back to where they have traditionally been. The fix is to be implemented over time and involves the wider use of nuclear energy.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh plans to build 40,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2020, equivalent to a third of India's total power generation, to meet soaring energy needs and cut reliance on coal-fired plants. India won the right Sept. 6 to buy atomic technology and fuel from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and expects the U.S. Congress to clear the deal this month.

India needs to add to the 3 percent of electricity that comes from Russian-designed reactors. The country has 17 reactors in six states that produce 4,120 megawatts of power, according to Nuclear Power's Web site.

General Electric, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, Areva, Toshiba Corp.'s Westinghouse and Rosatom may each win contracts valued at more than $3.5 billion to supply two reactors that can generate more than 1,000 megawatts apiece, Jain said. The orders will be part of a $40 billion reactor-building program.

The nation's monopoly atomic-power generator plans to build ``nuclear parks'' housing reactors capable of generating as much as 8,000 megawatts at a single location.

India signed a civilian nuclear agreement with Russia in January last year. Russia is helping India build two 1,000- megawatt light-water reactors at the Kudankulam nuclear power station in the southern state of Tamil Nadu.

India plans to buy the AP1000 series of reactors from Monroeville, Pennsylvania-based Westinghouse, the `ABWR' series from General Electric, the Russian VVR 1,000 units and Areva's serial designs for the 1,000 megawatt plants,

`The Bush administration wants to Congress to ratify the agreement with India, which will allow U.S. companies such as General Electric to compete for the business. Until then, the NSG waiver means Areva, Russia's Rosatom and Toshiba can get a head start. Let's see if Obama will approve this business.

General Electric, the world's biggest maker of energy- generation equipment, said Aug. 25 that it may lose contracts in India to French, Russian and Japanese rivals if the U.S. Congress doesn't ratify the deal soon after the agreement wins approval from the suppliers group.

My Comments: This business could add many jobs, and a significant amount of income for companies in the United States. It is imperative that Congress approve the agreement with India.

If Congress does not approve this agreement, Russia, Japan, and France will be recipients of this business and the United States will get none. I suspect that if Obama, of the Democratic Party, gets into the office of the presidency we will lose this opportunity.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama –the brave new leader—are owned by the environmental lobby. That lobby is applauding the deindustrialization underway, and their attitude is that a depression wouldn’t be such a bad thing as a lesson in learning how to live within our environmental means. Their jobs aren’t on the line, after all, and their disdain for the impacted industries is complete.

What they and the Triple D Democrats haven't counted on, though, was America making the connection between the deteriorating economy and their anti-energy agenda.

Energy is freedom. Energy is prosperity. Every Democrat on the fall ballot is part of the anti-energy party which is wrecking havoc on the economy and every family’s budget. A vote for any Democrat is a vote for shortages, rising gas prices, rising unemployment, and falling production. A vote for any democrat is a vote for failing airlines and collapsing financial institutions and for the shuttering of car plants and large manufacturing.

The 104 U. S. nuclear power plants posted all-time record highs for electrical production in 2007, according to figures released by the Nuclear Institute. U S nuclear plants produced approximately 800 billion kWh in 2007, exceeding more than 2% the previous high of 788.5 billed in 2004. The average capacity factor of these plants was 91.8% for the year 2007.

Also these nuclear plants post an average energy cost 1.72 cents per kWh. This cost is is lower than that of either coal or natural gas fired power plants.

The United Kingdom (UK) of England has studied the world's energy problems and arrived at the following conclusion:

Forward from Gordon Brown, the Prime Minster of England: Nuclear power is a tried and tested technology. It has provided the UK with secure supplies of safe, low-carbon electricity for half a century. New nuclear power stations will be better designed and more efficient than those they will replace. More than ever before, nuclear power has a key role to play as part of the UK’s energy mix. I am confident that nuclear power can and will make a real contribution to meeting our commitments to limit damaging climate.

Nuclear Power:
A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions seems unlikely given our continued heavy reliance on fossil fuel consumption. Even UK environmentalist James Lovelock, who posited the Gaia theory that the Earth operates as a giant, self-regulating super-organism, now sees nuclear energy as key to our planet’s future health. Lovelock says the first world behaves like an addicted smoker, distracted by short-term benefits and ignorant of long-term risk. “Civilization is in imminent danger,” he warns, “and has to use nuclear—the one safe, available energy source—or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.”

Yet environmental activists, notably Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, continue to lobby against clean nuclear energy, and in favor of the band-aid Kyoto Treaty. We can agree renewable energies, such as wind, geothermal and hydro are part of the solution. But nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand.

it seems that we will now replay the scenario of the 1970s where we installed solar plants in the California deserts and found that they only produce electric energy for about four hours out of twenty four hours each day and hardly that much in the winter months. Also the panels most be power washed weekly which is quite expensive considering there is little water to be had in the desert.

The move to the use of plug-in hybrid technology offers the possibility of a smooth transition from today’s oil-based system to one that increasingly uses electricity as a substitute. As an example, if one-third of our vehicles were plug-in hybrids, a practical goal by 2020, we could reduce our use of oil for motor transportation by about 25% from today’s levels, sharply reducing our needs for oil imports. A significant reduction in CO2 emissions also can result as electricity use increases. The increased use of electricity makes sense only if it can be produced in a manner that is economical, sustainable, and minimizes CO2 emissions and other environmental effects.

There are several generating technologies that could accomplish these important goals, including hydro, wind, solar, fossil fuels with carbon capture, and nuclear. Of these, a clear practical approach that is capable of economically providing the large quantities of additional electrical energy required is nuclear power.

Based on the use of today’s technology, nuclear power has demonstrated an enviable safety record while producing electricity at a competitive cost. The availability of nuclear power has been shown to be sustainable for thousands of years through the implementation of a closed fuel cycle.

Omaha electric rates to increase average of 14.6 percent

Let's Have Some Love for Nuclear Power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia