Nuclear Power: Anywhere But Here (And Here’s Why)
Germany is usually touted as among the greenest of the green European countries. Yet, election victor Angela Merkel intends to keep Germany’s nuclear plants operating longer than their required phase-outs. Why? Nuclear plants provide low cost electricity with no environmental damage (provided waste can be contained, which it can).
China, the new darling of the liberal world stage, is being lauded for its aggressive pro-environmental plans including a New York Times editorial that gushes with hope that America could become like the Communist Chinese. Not mentioned much in the editorial or anywhere this country? China is depending heavily on nuclear energy to fix its woeful environmental record and meet those dreamy goals of greenitude.
India is also embarking on a push for nuclear energy that our press here ignores. Indeed, the media here like to push the notion that India is a horrible polluter (which it is), but avoid revealing what India is doing to fix their problem…which is to go nuke.
Know who else loves nuclear power? Steven Chu, our oddball DoE Secretary. To be fair to Dr. Chu, he does know a lot about nuclear energy (especially compared to his comical ignorance of meteorology and climatology). Dr. Chu claims that several funding efforts to kick start nuclear power plants are underway, but no one seems to be discussing the nature of these efforts or what they will exactly entail. At least not, he adds, until we figure out how to prevent the creation of plutonium that can be easily weaponized.
Oh dear. It all fell apart there. See, plutonium is not easy to manufacture, and as long as you have security protocols in place, it cannot be weaponized. However, if you really have no intentions to take nuclear safety seriously, then yes—plutonium is easily weaponized by simply scattering it around a major downtown area (loading it into a weapon is too costly versus treating it as a horrifyingly toxic poison).
Dr. Chu isn’t ignorant about plutonium: he is hoping you are. Basically, he says “Yes, nuclear energy will support all our electrical needs and environmental goals inexpensively; however, we really won’t go that way until we spend years, if not decades, to find a solution to a problem that could be prevented by using current protocols.” We make plutonium now, and have since the 1950s at least…current nuclear safety protocols here have ensured, without doubt, that plutonium has never been used illegally. So really, despite his initially promising news, his follow up comments reveal the Obama administration is not going to adopt nuclear energy any time soon.
So why the hell not? Germany, whom we evidently admire, and China, whom we should not, as well as India see the immediate need for nuclear power. Think it through: it is inexpensive to build a plant, given the energy output versus capital expense of start up: a plant can pay itself off within a few years. Electricity rates drop dramatically for homes and businesses. The plants work reliably and safely. We have adequate containment, although the planned Yucca Mountain facility out west that would have provided for decades of safe storage, as well as consolidate numerous scattered storage facilities nationwide that need permanent homes, was quietly killed by the Democrats. And, best of all, there are no pollutants to poison the atmosphere and drinking water with American nuclear technology.
What could be the damned opposition to nuclear power? Well, follow the money. Coal burning plants will need to purchase carbon credits worth billions of dollars. Many leading Democratic party leaders are heavily invested in carbon credit trading firms, resulting in personal profit. Green technologies will be able to sell carbon credits at enormous profit to investors. Many leading Democratic party leaders are heavily invested in green technology firms, resulting in personal profit.
Nuclear energy plants are carbon neutral. Credits, technically, need not be bought or sold, so no money changes hands, right? Curiously, because nuclear fuel must be refined, processed, transported, and shipped, nuclear plants due indeed produce a carbon footprint, reason environmentalists. However, because they generate electricity but not carbon, they offset themselves financially.
Environmentalists grasp the first point, but not the second: Democratic party leaders do not make a personal profit off nuclear plants, so they are a no go. Environmentalists have a noble goal, but they too often fail to see that they are being hustled by the folks they most support: the Democrats. If the Democrats were serious about environmental reform, they would embrace nuclear power at once. However, once again, Democrats are not at all serious about saving the environment, and have never been. They just claim to be by promoting their own retirement investments to gullible Americans.
Full disclosure: yes, conservatives (especially Republican politicians) would personally profit from their investments in nuclear power. But so could Democrats, right? They could also invest in nuclear power. But what would the average Americans responses be if Al Gore et al. were discovered buying stock in nuclear technologies? The Czar will crack his knuckles patiently while you come up with a creatively entertaining list of your own.
Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.