travisthornton.net

Documenting history as it happens.

Archive for March, 2007


Gory Business

Published March 21st, 2007 in Environment, News | No Comments »

Have you seen former Vice President Al Gore on television lately?  He spoke before Congress Energy and Commerce Committee today, and sparred with Sen. Jim Inhofe in an exchange that was pretty entertaining, about Global Warming.  I am big fan of Al Gore, namely for standing up for his beliefs and using his celebrity power to bring such a critical issue into the light, forcing us to make tough, unpopular decisions.  I also believe in taking action by whatever means necessary, including wind power, solar power, hydropower, hybrid vehicles, and so on and so forth.  However, I must fault him at the same time for turning a blind eye to something I have personally been force-fed for the last year-and-a-half in my occupation:  Nuclear Power.

I understand the safety concerns but don’t want to address the ins-and-outs of reactor protection, operational safety, and the technologies we employ today that separates it from the era of accident.  It’s boring if you don’t care about all of that.  What I want to do is bring up some of the numbers addressed today in Congress to convey the potential and address the advantages of the nuclear power capability we already possess.  It simply needs to be mobilized.

If you saw Al Gore’s movie, you will recall a scene near the end with a line graph that included wedges showing how we can reduce our carbon dioxide output by taking simple little steps.  This graph showed how these emissions could stabilize in fifty years.  Not one of the fifteen wedges represented the nuclear energy possibilities.  One of the wedges was wind and solar power, though.  I’d like to state a couple of facts concerning this. 

A conservative estimate for the increase in electrical energy demand by 2030 is forty percent, or 300,000 megawatts.  This was discussed today by Al Gore and Dennis Hastert in the House Committee, and is based on numbers provided by the Energy Information Administration.  To fill these needs with wind power would require a 50-fold expansion of demands.  In other words, and easier to picture in my mind, is a land demand of 74 million acres, roughly the size of Wyoming.  To fill the same wedge with photovoltaic electricity production would require a 700-fold demand; roughly the area of New Jersey.

The basic outcome to draw from these numbers is that these types of energy supplements will not last, and we will need something else to meet these demands.  More than likely, these demands will initially be met by advanced coal-fired plants, burning up more fossil fuels.  Although he is not avidly opposed to nuclear energy, there are two major arguments Al Gore addressed in Congress today against nuclear power plant construction; cost and time.  However, according to the Nuclear Energy Institution, the construction of coal-fired power plants costs about the same to build as nuclear power plants yielding the same output to the electric grid.  Another argument against nuclear power plants is that they take too long to build; these plants, however, can be built from the ground up in forty-eight months.  Asian companies have proven this.  The future will bring stricter demands on the emissions coal-fired plants, driving their cost of production up and up in order to cap the greenhouse gases released, which is what I’m talking about in the first place. 

With nuclear energy, there are no greenhouse gas emissions; no carbon dioxide being pooped out into the atmosphere.  This is something Al Gore should have flaunted in front of Congress today, with charts and graphics, quotes and pictures.  Somehow, his agenda does not support this shift in our national thought process.  I do not understand why not, though, as he seems relatively unafraid to put his reputation on the line.  I think it has something to do with the mindset of the majority of his supporters, which somehow includes me.  At this point in my manifesto though, I have to represent the South’s forward thinking on these issues.

I know a great amount of support for Al Gore’s movement comes from California, particularly Hollywood.  However, it was pointed out in the House today that fifty-five percent of California’s electrical energy is provided by natural gas, while in South Carolina, fifty-five percent of their energy use is provided by nuclear energy.  I was there last year and was paying attention to the decisions Southern Power and Duke Power made to construct new power plants even though they can’t be brought online until Congress says so.  This doesn’t make sense to me.  Not only should we push nuclear power plant construction, we should be offering huge tax incentives for those companies opting out of the coal industry and moving toward a nuclear-based idea.  Now, on to another state I have to represent:  Texas.

In the Houston Chronicle on 16 March 2007 was an article stating that Texas’ nuclear power capability could triple in the next decade based on several projects underway.  These deals aim at increasing output with new construction at Dallas’Comanche Peak and Bay City’s South Texas Project, two existing nuclear power plants.  TXU Energy and NRG Energy are more than likely going to purchase additional power plants to add to the sites.  Comments were recently made regarding the upcoming potential by the CEO of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, who is also the man who let me in the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, retired Admiral Skip Bowman, former Commanding Officer of Naval Reactors.  He recently stated that in 2004, the two sites produced 11 percent of Texas’ electricity.  If this energy was to be provided by coal-fired plants, there would be an additional 31.6 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.  This is the equivalent of the emissions from six out of every seven cars in the state.  Now these companies want to put 14,000 additional megawatts of nuclear generated power to the grid, up from a previous 11,000 megawatts, more than doubling their current output.  Regarding this issue, TXU Energy is also on Al Gore’s website for not wanting to comply with proposed emission standards due to the incurred price.

So what do we do?  How do we answer the call?  The answers vary with the level of control.  Nationally, we can augment the electric power grid with nuclear power, and the companies that do should receive substantial tax breaks.  Domestically, home owners who purchase solar panels and windmill turbines for the homes (yes, you can supplement with windmills now) should also receive considerable tax breaks.  On the road, drivers of hybrid and/or flex-fuel vehicles (yes, they should combine the two) should, and do, receive tax breaks.  Not everybody can do everything, but we can all do something.  These issues are too important to ignore, and pushing the technology benefits us as a society in more ways than one.  We can even gain oversight through the advantage we possess on an international level.  Nationally, we only stand to succeed in the realms of education, economy, environment, energy, and employment. 

Ides of March

Published March 15th, 2007 in News | No Comments »

I haven’t been able to plug into what’s going on in the news lately due to work, but I decided to come up for air to see what’s going on.  Here’s a quick glance at a couple of issues that made the news, then made the news, and made the news again, as well as some more important yet less publicized issues.  My opinion is, of course, scattered throughout.

Who Run It?  Three Examples

The AG/AG (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) was a huge topic this week, after firing eight US Attorneys in one day for apparent political reasons.  He only fell 85 short of the Clinton Administration’s record 93 US Attorney firings, happening on his second day in office.  In this case, these people work directly for the President, and Gonzales fired them based on their beliefs.  I would like to compare this situation to a small business scenario.  If the owner of a business was selling a certain product, and a couple of those working for him did not believe in the product and were determined to undermine the boss, they risk the chance of being fired.  It is a similar situation here.  Was it wrong to wait and see if these people would support their boss before making a decision?  Gonzales could get canned over this incident as well, but if he does, he falls under the same scenario; he has offended the boss, and has to go.  The apparent influence of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers over the decisions made is disheartening; Gonzales’ actions, however, were not criminal and should not be handled by Congress.  I think if we wait a week, another celebrity will do something stupid and/or die and this will all be distant memory.

Next are the highly publicized personal remarks concerning homosexuality in the military by the highest ranking member in the military, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Peter Pace.  General Pace stated he thinks homosexuality is immoral, and he does not want to promote immorality in the military by allowing open homosexuals to serve.  He has apologized for making personal remarks while defending the military policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, but has not apologized for his point of view.  That being said, it was his point of view, and he has the right to opine in a non-slanderous way.  What caught my attention in this case is the way the incident was portrayed on Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room; the headline read “Gay Sex Immoral.”  The problem is, General Pace didn’t say that he thought gay sex was immoral.  CNN simply wants you to feel the way they do about the issue.  If you can’t make up your mind, they’ll do it for you.  With regards to the question at hand, I can’t speak for the entire military, but as far as the Navy is concerned, homosexuals could probably serve in the military without any problems at all… as long as no one showered or slept onboard, which would be pretty difficult on deployments lasting the better part of a year.

While on the issue of handfed opinion, a common occurrence on network news lately are public opinion polls concerning foreign policy.  When asked who should handle the war in Iraq, the President or Congress, Congress won by 20 points.  Enter:  the United States Constitution.  I was astounded this was even a sounding point.  When all is said and done, there just might be some fallout concerning added checks and balances on War Powers, but for now, the war is underway, and the decisions should be made by the United States military.  I have noted the increased number of people with opinions on Iraq, Iran, and Sudan on television today that speak as an expert on fighting wars because they are part of an organization someone built online in their basement.  If young able-bodied men want to make a difference in the war-fighting efforts, they should join the military, spend thirty years or so in active duty, make a name for themselves, put on a star or two as a general or an admiral, and proceed in changing the face of the military.  Don’t sit in Starbucks and whine about war; join the effort and defend the liberties you have been so quick to champion and willing to enjoy!  But I digress.  The point is, our nation’s victories were not won by referendum, and our laws aren’t made by popular vote.  Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they set up the government the way they did.  If it were the other way, we would still be a British colony.
 
The Real Deal:  Does this make me crazy?

And whilst these headlines were of significance to the news media, as lurid as they are, there were other events that got a lot less important that are a lot more important in the long run.  I would like to list the three sentences that got printed on Page 7 of my local paper, right above the advertisement for a Hong Kong Tailor in town.

Rival factions in Mideast reach a deal – Gaza City

Political rivals Hamas and Fatah reached a final agreement on forming a unity government Wednesday, wrapping up months of coalition negotiations aimed at ending bloody internal fighting and lifting international sanctions against the Palestinians. 
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas said he would present the new government to parliament this weekend for final approval.  Both sides hope the alliance will bring Palestinians out of international isolation after a yearlong boycott. (Courtesy Associated Press)”

That’s all it said.  Now, don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of short and sweet.  However, I think the amount of coverage this received is proportional to how much Americans care about it.  In light of the bloodshed resulting from this rift amongst the Palestinian Authority coupled with the joint ongoing Palestinian-Israeli discussions, of which the United States has been instrumental in arranging, I think we should care about this a little more than we do about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, General Pace’s comments, or popular opinion regarding ongoing military efforts.  I heard Governor Mitt Romney quoting a former Congressman in saying, “Politics stops at the water’s edge.”  Any political ideas or leanings should not be mixed with foreign policy decisions.  Sadly enough, the only foreign policy news that seems to get any press coverage is that which is steeped in politics.

Finally, one last bit of news caught my eye, and that is the current North Korean situation.  It appears North Korea will agree to shutdown its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon within a month.  This is happening due to six-party talks and what appears to be a successful sanction on frozen assets.  The amount of assets being withheld from the Pyongyang is about $25 million.  This might seem like a lot to the average person, but for a government, this is a tiny amount of money, especially for the government of a nation with the fourth largest army in the world.  I think this demonstrates how incredibly weak the economy of North Korea is and how vulnerable they are to us at this point in history.  If the United States ever wanted to undermine Communism, promote free economy, all while bolstering our national image, and combat environmental issues simultaneously, now is the time.  Our country is poised to take advantage of the situation, and I believe in the following idea.

Instead of dismantling the reactor that is already in place, I believe we should promote nuclear power as a U.N.-regulated source of energy in North Korea, in which our government contracts the any of the multiple civilian sector nuclear power companies to ensure operational safeguards for reactor protection.  These companies are owned and operated in a free economic structure, serving as an example in country; they could even train and hire North Korean scientists and physicists to work for them.  I know this is a radical idea, but it would prove to the average North Korean that America is not the Devil, give those with a desire to succeed a reason to comply with our policies, while giving the North Koreans the electrical power and heat that it needs.  It would be a humanitarian effort of sorts, but it is not without benefit to us.  We would have unprecedented oversight over a foreign country’s nuclear power capabilities and the undoubted upper hand in diplomacy.  

This opportunity comes at the same time regarding two crucial relationships: one with North Korea and the other, with the environment.  Part of our current agreement is to provide North Korea with 50 million cubic tons of fuel for their current power necessities.  Nuclear power is the safest and cleanest source of energy known to man, as long as it is managed correctly.  It is rarely discussed amongst those searching for alternative fuels based on the lack of knowledge regarding its capabilities.  This is a longer lasting solution to the energy demands of North Korea than 50 million cubic tons of fossil fuel.  

Perhaps my proposal would work, and maybe it wouldn’t, but it is not being discussed on the public level at all.   I think this is due to a fear of being responsible for the development of the North Korean energy sector.  Frankly, I think we would rather take responsibility for their energy demands, a short-term sacrifice if we turned the issue over to the civilian sector, than being given the responsibility for cleaning up a devastated U.S. city, trying to recover from a detonated nuclear weapon which originated in North Korea, sold simply because they needed the money.