tell that to the towiz girls with their SUVs.

Pebble bed nuclear power plants are great for producing hydrogen!

A 20% increase over 3 years, while greater than the inflation rate, is hardly skyrocketing. Perhaps if the US stopped subsidizing gas and allowing it to sell for artificially cheap prices the market would balance by decreasing demand.

Gas is $.12/gallon in Venezuela, maybe we should fill up there. Hmmmm, maybe that's why they're buying all those AK-47 rifles?

"After years of absent leadership on the issue, President George W. Bush recently laid out a plan to increase U.S. energy independence."

Abset leadership?! Recently laid out?! He's had the energy plan for Congress since he was first elected. Hell he was even campaigning on it in 2000. Where the hell have you been?

It takes four tons of coal to provide the power needs of one inhabitant of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive for a year. A few ounces of uranium could cover the same need.

There is also the damage to the environment. The central hypocrisy of the green movement in our era is that anti-nuclear policy has driven the U.S. to use the hydrocarbon fuels so much opposed by the anti-global warming movement. Or, as Huber puts it: "If we had simply built all the plants that were in the pipeline at the time of Three Mile Island, then we would have reduced current coal combustion sufficiently to satisfy the Kyoto treaty."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0504260293apr26,1,1076107.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

Do you remember what happened at Three Mile Island?

Small amounts of radioactivity escaped into the atmosphere.

More radioactivity is released by using coal.

3mi was old 1st generation nuclear tech. Today's is much better and safer. If you actually knew what caused 3mi, you'd realize that its impossible with todays technology. Every other advanced country in the world is building new nuclear reactors, some a lot more liberal countries than the US, and they're not afraid of any disasters.

Problem is the liberals wont embrace clearly "green" nuclear technology because its seen now as a Bush/Cheney idea to make Big Energy rich. Maybe when Hillary proposes it in her pres campaign they'll all praise it as the greatest solution to our energy needs. Ditto with Yucca Mountian.

Maybe Hillary can do a "Nixon opens China" type thing?

***

Maybe others will wkae up to reality:

Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani

Nuclear plants are targets for Bush's henchemen-er I mean terrorists.

"Nuclear plants are targets for Bush's henchemen-er I mean terrorists."

Yes.. nothing like high-minded debate.

As much as I hate giving France credit for anything, they have it right on nuclear power.

So nuclear plants aren't terrorist targets?

Actually, nuke plants are poor terrorist targets, no bang for the buck (no pun intended). The effort required to have any chance of causing any release to the outside population would be tremendous (with a very low chance of success).

Here are a few solutions (other than banning evil SUVs and the hating those who drive them) to the problem of foreign energy sources.

Limit home sizes to 100 square feet per resident to reduce heating and cooling energy use (this one is for all the Hollywood elites who tell us to dump the SUVs while they live in 8000+ square feet homes using more energy in a day than my SUV uses in a year). No one needs more than 100 square feet, so why should we be allowed to have larger homes? The government should take action.

Require all vehicles to be electric or hydrogen powered within the next 10 years. Oh wait, electricity is required to make hydrogen and charge batteries. Does that mean we will have to build more power plants?

Build more power plants!! Hmmm, coal, gas, and oil produce greenhouse gasses and coal ash is radioactive (do your research) to boot, I guess those are out. I know, wind power... oh wait, it is very inefficient and works best in the spring and fall (and during election years when there is more wind than ever) when it is needed the least. Wind power is also very expensive, noisy, space intensive, and kills endangered birds... I guess that rules that out for baseload power as well.

Hmmm, solar? Not real efficient either, takes a lot of space and the solar panels contain substances (like arsenic) that do not have a half life (and have to be disposed of properly). Oh yeah, solar is also very space intensive and blocks the sun's rays from the Earth. Not a good thing for large scale production (like wind it should be used in places where there would be more benefit than cost).

What does that leave? Nuclear? I would take the time to tell y'all about the great things nuclear can do for you all (I am serious), but there are just to many people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the horrors of nuclear power from journalists, made for TV movies, and others who come to a conclusion and do the research to prove it (bass ackwards) that you cannot be educated (those who have taken the time, I commend you).

Any other solutions? I would love to hear them (there are some great solutions, but the nutcase far left (not to be confused with the reasonable left... yes, there is such a thing) would see to it they never came to fruition just as they have been doing since day one.

"Actually, nuke plants are poor terrorist targets, no bang for the buck (no pun intended). The effort required to have any chance of causing any release to the outside population would be tremendous (with a very low chance of success)."

Oh really? Al Quaeda seems to view this differently:

Full article:

http://www.energybulletin.net/1243.html
-----------------------
9/11 Report Reveals Al Qaeda Ringleader Contemplated a NY-area Nuclear Power Plant as Potential Target

by Kyle Rabin

The 9/11 commission report, which was released on July 22, 2004, suggests that the plot's ringleader had considered crashing a commercial airliner into a nuclear power plant in the New York area. The report explains that Mohamed Atta, who piloted one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, "considered targeting a nuclear facility he had seen during familiarization flights near New York." The nuclear plant was not identified, but the report says the plotters already had agreed to target the World Trade Center. The Journal News broke the story over the weekend.

Several strong pieces of evidence point to Indian Point. First, the terrorists had rented planes from Teterboro Airport -- in northern New Jersey about 30 miles from Indian Point -- for their reconnaissance flights. Second, a June 16th 9/11 panel statement noted that the terrorists' test flights included trips along the Hudson River corridor. Third, the Indian Point nuclear power plants in northwestern Westchester County are about 35 miles from midtown Manhattan. Other area nuclear power plants are more than 100 miles from New York City.

"Located just 35 miles from the world's financial and media center, with 20 million people living around it, Indian Point presents an obvious target for future terrorist attacks," said Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper. "According to the 9/11 Commission's recently released report, Indian Point may already have been in Al Qaeda's crosshairs. With the Republican convention coming to New York, this is of particular concern."

First off, not building something because it could be a terrorist target is totally asinine, and dare I use the cliche "letting the terrorists win."

Second, above poster is right, nuclear plants aren't any better of a target than any other power plant or infrastructure building. Sure, "nuclear" has the connotation and scare factor that we know al qaeda looks for, but in reality even flying a plane into the reactor is pretty safe from what I've read. Remember the targets they went after on 9/11, they were symbolic targets, not necessarily designed to kill the most people possible, otherwise they'd go for football stadiums. They target things that represent our power or relating to our relationships in the middle east: white house, capitol, camp david, oil refineries, wall street, military bases, and so on.

"No one needs more than 100 square feet, so why should we be allowed to have larger homes? The government should take action."

Wow, talk about taking away freedom! Well, you can start us off. Though you might have to move out of your dorm room because its too big. I think you might have a misunderestimated how small 100sqft is. I think theres more room in the international space station.

Hey, here's a better idea. Make everyone live in huge concrete housing projects, Soviet style. Then we'll all be equal, equally miserable, exactly how you want it. Get together with Comrade Chris Dols from last Thursday editorial and you two can plot the revolution together.

Pomposity and elitism growing like cancer on my fragile, godless soul, I am heavy-hearted this evening. It is with remorse, regret, and repentance that I return my eyes to the past and rue my sinful life of liberalism. For years now, I've lived a lie. Only six months after cursing red states, the popular appellation for the enlightened states of the Bible Belt, I've grown to realize that I've been so deeply misguided, a slave to the whimsies and trends of the fanciful world of liberalism.

And if you believe that, I've got a turkey club with extra bacon sporting a grease stain that bears a striking resemblance to the penis of Christ. It can be all yours for nine grand on eBay.

I'm sick and fucking tired of being called a Communist, an un-American liberal, and a terrorist because I happen to know more than you do. I'm sick of you calling me an elitist snob because while I probably am a snob, the facts are at my hip like your Smith & Wesson -- I'm well-armed, bitch. I'm sick of hearing about how I'm intolerant because I won't accept your ideas and hypocritical when I call you intolerant for being prejudiced against gays.

Well, excuse me; should I be tolerant of the idea that a team of well-trained apes and recently neutered canines masterminded the war in Iraq from their bunker off the coast of Alaska? Most of your ideas are just that absurd, so you can feel free to shut the hell up.

Actually, let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story, asshole. So go on and keep talking while I rant:

What's that you say? Homosexual marriage denigrates the institution of marriage and makes your marriage meaningless? If you live in one of those red states, the chances are pretty good your marriage already is meaningless since you divorce each other about as often as Michael Jackson feels up an 8-year-old. But the bluest of the blue states have the lowest divorce rates in the country. Massachusetts and those gay-loving bastard hippies in New England, home of the New England Patriots, the Freedom Trail, and elitist liberals, have been tinkering with the idea of detonating marriage, you see, by having the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The lowest divorce rate! Of course, they do have Ted Kennedy; but then again, you have Newt Gingrich, who asked his wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital. A real family man, that guy.

What's that you say? The Founding Fathers put this country together on Judeo-Christian values? Why is it then that Thomas Jefferson chopped up the Bible to create the Jefferson Bible, a version devoid of some of Christ's more memorable miracles? And why is it then that John Adams wrote in a treaty while President that the United States had never been nor ever would be a Christian nation? And why is it then that Thomas Paine wrote that he had no church? And why is it that Ben Franklin, who toyed with the idea of religion from time to time, pushed for the exclusion of the word "god" on money in lieu of the terms "liberty" and "freedom?" And why is it then that the Declaration of Independence opens with a line that practically plagiarizes John Locke rather than the Bible? And why is it then that when one of Ben Franklin's motions to introduce something having to do with God during the sessions creating the Constitution, the motion was denied by the other Founding Fathers? And why is it then that in the face of actual facts, you are still just so incredibly stupid?

What's that you say? That last paragraph being constructed exclusively of questions was a pompous rhetorical technique learned at my liberal indoctrination center (called "universities" by liberals and other people with at least 2 firing neurons)? First of all, who are you to be talking about indoctrination? What do you call it when you scare your kid with stories of going to eternal damnation then spend the first 10 years of his or her life talking about a god. I suppose that's just instilling family values as opposed to, say, brainwashing. As for calling me pompous, that seems mean. Just because I'm liberal doesn't mean I'm pompous (though I probably am). And it definitely doesn't mean I'm going to take all your money. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're taking all of ours -- unless, that is, you think North Dakota's tax base is holding up New York City. In case that went by you too fast (fast like Jeff Gordon), think about it: All the states that voted for Bush can't possibly generate enough federal revenue to support themselves; they're too small. Where does that money come from? All the rich, elitist, liberal snobs who are supposedly taking your money. It's the other way around, bucko.

What's that you say? Big government is on your back? Well, considering a good number of government officials, including folks like Phil Gramm, went to school on the GI Bill and that you get all your electric power from a socialist program set up by FDR and that you are the ones trying to stop people from having sex the way they want to have sex, it seems to me that you don't have a lot of room to talk about big government. Hmm? Good ol' Jeff Davis would never have stood for this crap? Put your stars and bars away before you hurt yourself. Turn down the Skynrd and listen closely: Every survey shows that you didn't understand any of the Bush foreign policy initiatives; the South lost the damn war, chief; and you guys use more government money per what you pay into the system than the blue states do. So shove your red state big government nonsense up your ass and go read a book. Well, start with Hooked on Phonics. In four or five years, move on to the Cat in the Hat.

What's that you say? You'd read a book, but your Christian values are under attack and you have to go on the offensive? You make up like 80 or 90% of the country. Every President in US history has been Christian. And you're being oppressed? Shut up, and try being an Arabic Muslim getting his balls felt up by some burly dude at the airport, then we'll talk. No one says you can't be Christian, but "Thou Shall Proselytize Using Public Resources" isn't one of the Ten Commandments, so stop pretending like you get to make everyone think like you. You're not some weary, oppressed, enslaved minority.

I'm an elitist snob? Maybe. But liberal elitist snobs were making this country run when your grandpappy was making moonshine in the backwoods of the territories of the Louisiana Purchase. So just drop the pretense and call your blog ConfederateIdiot instead of AmericanPatriotLovers. The patriots who founded this country were on my team, assclown.

So take your backwater conservative nonsense and shove it up your ass.

What's that you say? Uh, yeah, you are an elitist pompous snob. Enjoy the rest of your miserable life being a liberal angry asshole.

I think you're missing why George Bush won reelection. Contrary to your belief, the majority of the Republican party is not the Religious Right. Also, the majority of Christians feel just as strongly as you do that we must keep the separation of church and state.

The Republicans succeeded by appealing to many people. The party isn't JUST Christians. It's financial conservatives. It's social conservatives. It's gun nuts. It's business. It's libertarians. It's the elderly. In growing numbers, it's a little more Hispanic than it was before. The success was in getting everyone to work together and get out the vote. It's always hard to unseat an incumbent, especially one with lots of money while we're at war.

I'm just afraid that stereotyping Republicans as Southern Baptist Hick NASCAR Tacky Idiots is a reason why Kerry lost. Not THE reason, but A reason.

The facts are on the Democrats' side, but remember Adlai Stevenson:

"Mr. Stevenson, you'll have the vote of every thinking American!"

"That's not enough. I'm going to need a majority."

We just need to push that message out there, and play political hardball.

Umm.. Pebble bed reactors are not good targets for terrorists. The pebbles do not allow a massive meltdown to even be possible (as opposed to old rod technology). Even if taken over, all terrorist could do is turn the system off. If they flew a plane into it, it wouldn't matter since most nuke plants do all reactions underground and it's not like it'll just spontaneously blow up and spew radiation everywhere.

It would actually be interesting because all the effort in doing such an attack would yield very little casualities and empower America to embrace nuclear power even more after sustaining and rebounding from such an attack.

Typical conservative. Sticks with what he wants to beleive even when presented with the fact that Al Quaeda was planning to attack them. You would have told us that there was "no way" that the WTC would collapse before 9-11 as well. No, better not to have nuclear reactors that could leak radiation and turn massive swaths of land into uninhabitable wasteland. Not to mention that ther eis no way to dispose of the waste other than burying it underground and hoping that our burners don't leak.

I'll say no thanks to nuclear until we figure out fusion.

I'm fairly conservative, but I gotta say that was a damn good rant by the liberal snob.

And he was right on some stuff. Wrong on some, but right on a bunch.

"you guys use more government money per what you pay into the system than the blue states do."

So we get more from the government than we pay in but we're the dummies?

"I'll say no thanks to nuclear until we figure out fusion."

ETA: Late in our lifetimes if ever.

"I'll say no thanks to nuclear until we figure out fusion."

I don't think there's time to wait if you want to do anything about the carbon problem.

"I'll say no thanks to nuclear until we figure out fusion."

Hmm, once again, proving ignorance. The fusion process releases neutrons which in turn interact with the vessel containing the reaction. The result is a highly radioactive vessel that too must be disposed of.

That said, the waste created from both fusion and fission is dangerously radioactive in the the sense that it needs shielding for about 800 years (when the beta emitters decay away). After that, only the alpha emitters are left, which are not dangerous unless ingested. Last I heard, toxins such as arsenic (solar panels), lead (see batteries in electric/hybrid cars) and most other chemical toxins are deadly forever (they do not decay away). As I said earlier, if you want to discuss such alternatives, at least break yourself away from Sponge Bob reruns and the uneducated educating the uneducated and learn a little about the industry.

Meltdowns - perhaps you should learn what a meltdown is. TMI did have a partial meltdown, and there was a minimal release to the environment (the maximum offsite exposure was little more than a dental X-ray and far less that received by a frequent flyer platinum member in a year).

Energy independence - the key is diversification. Use wind, solar, nuclear, coal, and other sources where practical. Do not rely on one fuel because it is cheap today (see gas fired plants now compared to 10 years ago).

100 sq ft per person - some got the point, others did not. Everyone is complaining about the evil SUVs, yet no one seems to complain about the size of homes. My SUV gets about the same mileage (maybe 2 mpg less) than a typical 6 cylinder car. I pay more for gas, but I have to deal with it. The arguement against is, "you do not need such a gas guzzler, the gov't should step in". You do not need more than a few hundred square feet of living space, yet, most have more room than they "need" (not more than they want). It costs money to heat those domiciles and uses more energy than one that is smaller. If you expect the gov't to step in on SUVs, then you should also expect the gov't to step in on housing size and require super high efficient heating and cooling equipment ($$$) to be installed for each living space. Be consistent.

Not only are the house too big, many are surrounded by grass and other plants! The energy cost of routine yard work is huge.

All people should be forced to live in tiny cells in large buildings in centralized locations! All food should be prepared in bulk and consumed at standard times.

The state will determine every aspect of each and every life.

That is, except for the elite who will be running the state. But don't worry, they'll be the super intelligent liberals who are so disgusted that a majority of the voters don't agree with them.

People like the last poster just don't get it. Next thing you know, he(she) will be telling us that all that extra yard work results in heavier breathing, thus producing more CO2, which is a green house gas and thus destroys the Earth.

You know very well the majority of Americans are not smart enough to make their own decisions, it is up to the smart people running the government (and advising the government) to ensure all decisions are made for those who do not understand.

"that extra yard work results in heavier breathing, thus producing more CO2, which is a green house gas and thus destroys the Earth."

I'm sure that's covered somewhere in the Kyoto Protocol, at least to the extent of restricting such activities in the USA.

In fact all heavy breathing will be forbidden under the New Order!

"...the smart people running the government (and advising the government)"

Now I know you're spoofing! ROFLMAO

Spoofing to a point, yes, I am taking the extreme, but to make a point that there are those who are happy to expect the gov't to tell me what I can drive "to save energy" but really don't like the thought of the gov't imposing restrictions on their homes (living space) for the same reason.

Here's the place for thewanti-SUV crowd to shop for housing! No sense saving a piddling amout of energy on transport if you're going to live in a huge house. (And no flying in jets - stay home or walk!)

"My decision to inhabit just 100 square feet arose from some concerns I had about the impact a larger house would have on the environment..."

http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/information.htm