Re Op-Ed Columnist: Intercepting Iran's Take on America by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
Mr. Friedman wrote a faux report from the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, which he described as the "Iranian National Intelligence Estimate of America". In it he explains why the Iranians have nothing to worry about, since America is basically not following Tom's latest prescriptions. He singles out a few culprits whom he disagrees with, such as Lou Dobbs and Giuliani, but he fails to mention his advocacy of the Iraq invasion, and his many columns calling for nation-building in the Middle East and Afghanistan. (He also fails to mention the financial costs of those blunders: about $2 trillion.)
But I will agree with him on the stupidity of our ethanol subsidies. Ethanol is a waste of money, since it takes so much oil just to produce and distribute it, and to modify automobile engines to run on it.
I also agree that we need a Manhattan Project "to achieve energy independence". But this is where Tom wimps out. (I suspect he has an early record of opposing nuclear power.) He does not specifically call for R&D on nuclear fusion technology to produce electricity, nor does he call for more nuclear fission power plants.
Showing posts with label nuclear fusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear fusion. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
How To Strengthen Our Economy
Re News Analysis: Wall St. Sees Silver Lining in Economy by Peter S. Goodman:
The actions of the Federal Reserve, namely, lowering short-term interest rates, are like putting a Band Aid on a deep wound.
The dollar has been falling steadily since the Bush invasion of Iraq. This war has cost us, directly and indirectly, between one and two trillion dollars. Since we are in debt, all of this cost must be borrowed, mostly from our adversaries (China and Arab Muslim nations). Lowering short-term interest rates puts downward pressure on the dollar, making our currency even weaker. Eventually, foreign owners of American securities will get tired of losing money, and cut their losses by selling our securities, causing our markets to crash.
It would be better to make fundamental changes to strengthen our economy. We need higher taxes to stop borrowing money from our adversaries. We need higher interest rates to encourage saving by ordinary Americans. We need to end the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bring home our troops. (There are better ways to fight the War on Terror.) We need to expand the production of nuclear (fission) power, in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to spend $billions on nuclear fusion R&D.
The higher taxes should come from a more progressive income tax, and from tariffs. The latter means we need to exit from the WTO.
An idiot with a smart plan beats a genius with no plan. Right now, we have no smart plan to strengthen our economy. The plan I propose is tough medicine, but we live in a cruel world. We have no time to waste.
The actions of the Federal Reserve, namely, lowering short-term interest rates, are like putting a Band Aid on a deep wound.
The dollar has been falling steadily since the Bush invasion of Iraq. This war has cost us, directly and indirectly, between one and two trillion dollars. Since we are in debt, all of this cost must be borrowed, mostly from our adversaries (China and Arab Muslim nations). Lowering short-term interest rates puts downward pressure on the dollar, making our currency even weaker. Eventually, foreign owners of American securities will get tired of losing money, and cut their losses by selling our securities, causing our markets to crash.
It would be better to make fundamental changes to strengthen our economy. We need higher taxes to stop borrowing money from our adversaries. We need higher interest rates to encourage saving by ordinary Americans. We need to end the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bring home our troops. (There are better ways to fight the War on Terror.) We need to expand the production of nuclear (fission) power, in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We need to spend $billions on nuclear fusion R&D.
The higher taxes should come from a more progressive income tax, and from tariffs. The latter means we need to exit from the WTO.
An idiot with a smart plan beats a genius with no plan. Right now, we have no smart plan to strengthen our economy. The plan I propose is tough medicine, but we live in a cruel world. We have no time to waste.
Crazy Energy Bill
Re Lawmakers Set Deal on Raising Fuel Efficiency by John M. Broder and Micheline Maynard:
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
The article says that House leaders reached a deal on proposed energy legislation. I am all in favor of the automobile mileage requirements (35 mpg). However, I think the proposal that most electric utilities produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources, like wind and solar, by 2020, would be insane.
I have long argued that we need to produce most of our electric power from nuclear reactors. That would be the most efficient way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and therefore weaken our enemies in the war on terror, because the more electricity we produce, the lower the price of electricity, and that would incentivize production of electric vehicles.
I have also long advocated R&D to develop viable nuclear fusion power. The advances made in the Bussard fusion reactor show the promise of that technology. Surely we can take a few billion dollars out of the trillions we are wasting in stupid Middle East wars and spend that money on fusion R&D.
Forcing utilities to spend billions on wind and solar is crazy. These technologies are proven failures. They will never yield the massive and growing energy needs of our nation. Requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of electricity from wind and solar would be the biggest gift to Osama bin Laden since the insane invasion of Iraq.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Obama and Energy Policy
Hillary Clinton is supposedly "agnostic" regarding building more nuclear (fission) power plants, whereas Barack Obama supports building them.
Someone should tell Barack (and any other presidential candidates who support nuclear power) to look at nuclear fusion. If we would subsidize nuclear power (building nuclear fission plants and doing drastically more R&D on fusion, such as the Bussard Reactor) we would arrive sooner at the happy day when we no longer need to import oil. (Cheap and abundant electricity would lead to more electric vehicles, which means less dependence on oil, and generating electricity from nuclear fuel also means less dependence on oil, natural gas, and coal.) As a bonus, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, so this makes it attractive to the growing cadre of global warming alarmists.
It is very odd that as I write this, not a single candidate is talking about fusion power, when we are in a state of war because of our past stupid failure to more fully embrace nuclear power.
Someone should tell Barack (and any other presidential candidates who support nuclear power) to look at nuclear fusion. If we would subsidize nuclear power (building nuclear fission plants and doing drastically more R&D on fusion, such as the Bussard Reactor) we would arrive sooner at the happy day when we no longer need to import oil. (Cheap and abundant electricity would lead to more electric vehicles, which means less dependence on oil, and generating electricity from nuclear fuel also means less dependence on oil, natural gas, and coal.) As a bonus, nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gas emissions, so this makes it attractive to the growing cadre of global warming alarmists.
It is very odd that as I write this, not a single candidate is talking about fusion power, when we are in a state of war because of our past stupid failure to more fully embrace nuclear power.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
More Reasons Why We Need To Develop Fusion Power
Some quotes from High-Priced Oil Adds Volatility to Power Scramble by Mark Landler in today's NY Times:
"Even in developed countries like Canada, rising oil prices can cause dislocation. The region around the oil sands in northern Alberta is the closest thing the developed world has to a 19th-century boom town. The influx of workers has created a shortage of skilled labor in neighboring British Columbia, where construction is under way for the 2010 Winter Olympics.... But perhaps no country has reveled in its oil wealth like Russia. NetJets Europe, the private-jet company, plans to open an office in Russia because the traffic between Moscow and London has become so dense. This month, Christies will stage what it expects to be a record-setting auction week dedicated to Russian art, including the auction of a Faberg egg made for the Russian royal family. Russians have kept Londons high-end real estate market buzzing. There are a lot of Russian buyers around who are prepared to pay a vast amount of money, said Michael Chetwode of the Home Search Bureau. Back home, Russias oil wealth is trickling down. Mr. Putin is using it to finance priority national projects, like improved health care and education, and access to affordable housing. Oil may also help Mr. Putin cling to power after he leaves the presidency, perhaps as prime minister. As he noted recently, We all remember what state the country was in seven, eight years ago. Eight years ago, oil was trading at $16 a barrel."
From Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand by Jad Mouawad and Julia Werdigier, also in today's Times:
"the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.... High economic growth in China and India could push oil prices to $159 a barrel by 2030, the agency said."
That's an odd forecast. $300 a barrel by 2030 would be more like it.
"As the need for oil imports grows, and supplies level off in many industrial nations, the world will become increasingly reliant on a smaller number of oil-exporting countries, mainly Russia and in the Middle East. As a consequence, the agency said, global energy security will increasingly be at risk."
One can only hope that the United States develops viable nuclear fusion power some time before oil reaches $200 per barrel.
"Even in developed countries like Canada, rising oil prices can cause dislocation. The region around the oil sands in northern Alberta is the closest thing the developed world has to a 19th-century boom town. The influx of workers has created a shortage of skilled labor in neighboring British Columbia, where construction is under way for the 2010 Winter Olympics.... But perhaps no country has reveled in its oil wealth like Russia. NetJets Europe, the private-jet company, plans to open an office in Russia because the traffic between Moscow and London has become so dense. This month, Christies will stage what it expects to be a record-setting auction week dedicated to Russian art, including the auction of a Faberg egg made for the Russian royal family. Russians have kept Londons high-end real estate market buzzing. There are a lot of Russian buyers around who are prepared to pay a vast amount of money, said Michael Chetwode of the Home Search Bureau. Back home, Russias oil wealth is trickling down. Mr. Putin is using it to finance priority national projects, like improved health care and education, and access to affordable housing. Oil may also help Mr. Putin cling to power after he leaves the presidency, perhaps as prime minister. As he noted recently, We all remember what state the country was in seven, eight years ago. Eight years ago, oil was trading at $16 a barrel."
From Warning on Impact of China and India Oil Demand by Jad Mouawad and Julia Werdigier, also in today's Times:
"the International Energy Agency warned that demand for oil imports by China and India will almost quadruple by 2030 and could create a supply “crunch” as soon as 2015 if oil producers do not step up production, energy efficiency fails to improve and demand from the two countries is not dampened.... High economic growth in China and India could push oil prices to $159 a barrel by 2030, the agency said."
That's an odd forecast. $300 a barrel by 2030 would be more like it.
"As the need for oil imports grows, and supplies level off in many industrial nations, the world will become increasingly reliant on a smaller number of oil-exporting countries, mainly Russia and in the Middle East. As a consequence, the agency said, global energy security will increasingly be at risk."
One can only hope that the United States develops viable nuclear fusion power some time before oil reaches $200 per barrel.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
The Farm Bill
The farm bill working its way through Congress is a good example of wasteful spending. According to Op-Ed Contributor: Weed It and Reap by Michael Pollan in today's NY Times, it will cost the taxpayers $288 billion (not million).
I have a better idea. Take a small portion of that pile of money, and spend whatever it takes to develop viable nuclear fusion power and build a hundred such plants around the country. Then, along with switching over to electric vehicles and electric heat in homes and offices, we can stop importing oil, and, in fact, start exporting oil. I think this would cause a huge economic crash in the Middle East, and cut much of the funding of al Qaeda.
Now, that would be money well spent.
I have a better idea. Take a small portion of that pile of money, and spend whatever it takes to develop viable nuclear fusion power and build a hundred such plants around the country. Then, along with switching over to electric vehicles and electric heat in homes and offices, we can stop importing oil, and, in fact, start exporting oil. I think this would cause a huge economic crash in the Middle East, and cut much of the funding of al Qaeda.
Now, that would be money well spent.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Bussard Fusion Reactor
M. Simon left a comment about the Bussard fusion reactor. I did a tiny amount of research on this, and I am left wondering why significant funding has not come forward for this concept of thermonuclear power generation, either from the government (in particular, the Navy, which provided early funding) or from the private sector.
For example, why wouldn't Google or GE support this effort with seed capital? Apparently, there is a lot I do not know about the Bussard fusion reactor, since if what I read about it were true, then someone or some company would make many billions from it.
Perhaps Dr. Bussard should be talking to venture capitalists or private equity managers. Someone on Wall Street would be interested if this reactor concept is the real deal.
For example, why wouldn't Google or GE support this effort with seed capital? Apparently, there is a lot I do not know about the Bussard fusion reactor, since if what I read about it were true, then someone or some company would make many billions from it.
Perhaps Dr. Bussard should be talking to venture capitalists or private equity managers. Someone on Wall Street would be interested if this reactor concept is the real deal.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Iraq Mistake
There have been many mistakes concerning Iraq, starting with it being carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British around 1920.
Today, we constantly read about mistakes made during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. Colin Powell does not get enough blame for his famous statement about Iraq to George W. Bush before the invasion: "If you break it, you own it".
The latest blame game is centered on whether the military gave its civilian masters (Bush and Rumsfeld in particular) good advice regarding how many troops would be needed.
This is nonsense. There was and is only one primary mistake, and that was made by President Bush: the decision to invade Iraq, a nation which was no threat to the United States.
While Bush was partying and avoiding service in Vietnam, others saw the folly of the War in Vietnam (which followed the folly of the Korean Conflict). In all three cases, we were never attacked by the other nation, and the other nation was not an historical enemy of the United States. We should never have fought these wars.
Imagine if we had not fought those wars. Imagine the happy and productive lives of the men and women who might not have been casualties of those stupid wars. Imagine what we could have done with the trillions of dollars (direct and indirect costs) we spent on those wars. Imagine other peoples loving Americans today instead of hating us.
No one can say for sure what might have happened had we not fought those stupid wars. But it is easy to imagine what America might have spent that treasure on.
Just two examples: nuclear fusion power development and thousands of nuclear fission power plants. This could have been achieved at least 30 years ago, and instead of importing oil (and thereby funding terrorism) we would have been exporting our own oil, since it would no longer be needed to fuel cars (which would all be electric) or heat homes.
Of course, the politicians and media pundits will argue for years who "lost" Iraq, but history will be quite clear who made the biggest mistake in foreign policy in modern time: George W. Bush. It was his idea to invade Iraq, and his hubris has kept us in that godforsaken country, because Bush will never admit he was wrong. His ideology will not permit it.
Today, we constantly read about mistakes made during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. Colin Powell does not get enough blame for his famous statement about Iraq to George W. Bush before the invasion: "If you break it, you own it".
The latest blame game is centered on whether the military gave its civilian masters (Bush and Rumsfeld in particular) good advice regarding how many troops would be needed.
This is nonsense. There was and is only one primary mistake, and that was made by President Bush: the decision to invade Iraq, a nation which was no threat to the United States.
While Bush was partying and avoiding service in Vietnam, others saw the folly of the War in Vietnam (which followed the folly of the Korean Conflict). In all three cases, we were never attacked by the other nation, and the other nation was not an historical enemy of the United States. We should never have fought these wars.
Imagine if we had not fought those wars. Imagine the happy and productive lives of the men and women who might not have been casualties of those stupid wars. Imagine what we could have done with the trillions of dollars (direct and indirect costs) we spent on those wars. Imagine other peoples loving Americans today instead of hating us.
No one can say for sure what might have happened had we not fought those stupid wars. But it is easy to imagine what America might have spent that treasure on.
Just two examples: nuclear fusion power development and thousands of nuclear fission power plants. This could have been achieved at least 30 years ago, and instead of importing oil (and thereby funding terrorism) we would have been exporting our own oil, since it would no longer be needed to fuel cars (which would all be electric) or heat homes.
Of course, the politicians and media pundits will argue for years who "lost" Iraq, but history will be quite clear who made the biggest mistake in foreign policy in modern time: George W. Bush. It was his idea to invade Iraq, and his hubris has kept us in that godforsaken country, because Bush will never admit he was wrong. His ideology will not permit it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)