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 power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear power. 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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
American Musicians For Saudi Arabia
Once again, some American musicians are doing their best to keep the United States dependent on Saudi Arabia, and in effect, raising funds for terrorists.
The article '70s Echo in New 'No Nukes' Campaign By David M. Herszenhorn in today's NY Times points out that "the musicians, Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash and Jackson Browne, aging, activist rock stars, have reunited to battle the nuclear power industry on Capitol Hill."
I suppose the word "nuclear" scares these musicians. Still, I bet they use a lot of electricity. Someone should tell them that electricity does not grow on trees, and we use far more than we could viably generate with "wind, solar and other renewable sources". 47 coal miners died in accidents in 2006. Also, it is estimated that thousands of additional Americans die every year due to the pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Contrast this with the approximately zero deaths from nuclear power every year.
In short, these musicians should stick to their knitting, and leave energy policy to those who know a little more about the subject.
The article '70s Echo in New 'No Nukes' Campaign By David M. Herszenhorn in today's NY Times points out that "the musicians, Bonnie Raitt, Graham Nash and Jackson Browne, aging, activist rock stars, have reunited to battle the nuclear power industry on Capitol Hill."
I suppose the word "nuclear" scares these musicians. Still, I bet they use a lot of electricity. Someone should tell them that electricity does not grow on trees, and we use far more than we could viably generate with "wind, solar and other renewable sources". 47 coal miners died in accidents in 2006. Also, it is estimated that thousands of additional Americans die every year due to the pollution associated with coal-fired power plants. Contrast this with the approximately zero deaths from nuclear power every year.
In short, these musicians should stick to their knitting, and leave energy policy to those who know a little more about the subject.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Tom Friedman Again
I admire NY Times columnist Tom Friedman. He always seems to write about topics I am interested in. I just wish he were more careful about his prescriptions.
Take today's column (Who Will Succeed Al Gore?). Unlike last week, at least today he wishes Bush had done something to "reverse our coming Social Security deficit". This implies he knows that Social Security is not in deficit today. I just wish he were more humble and not assume that there will be a deficit, but at least characterize it as a likely deficit. But only God knows if there will be a SS deficit.
The unasked question is, why is Al Gore not running for president? My guess is that the Clintons promised him their combined support to run for president in 2016, as long as he did not challenge Hillary for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and he accepted that deal.
I agree with Mr. Friedman that we need "greener" technology and industry. But when he uses "distributed solar power" for the army as an example, I disagree.
The most important thing we can do to strengthen our military and ensure that it stays the most technologically advanced fighting machine on the planet is simply to keep it out of stupid wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) and use the money saved to research and develop nuclear fusion power generation and/or thousands of nuclear fission power plants across the nation. Then, we will starve our enemies of today of the funds which they are using to threaten and terrorize us, and our GDP will grow so far and so fast that we could increase R&D throughout all of our industries and government. In such a setting, our military could not help but to become smarter and more powerful, since a strong economy generates more government revenue, and that revenue can in turn purchase more R&D for the military and more technology for fighting future defensive wars.
Take today's column (Who Will Succeed Al Gore?). Unlike last week, at least today he wishes Bush had done something to "reverse our coming Social Security deficit". This implies he knows that Social Security is not in deficit today. I just wish he were more humble and not assume that there will be a deficit, but at least characterize it as a likely deficit. But only God knows if there will be a SS deficit.
The unasked question is, why is Al Gore not running for president? My guess is that the Clintons promised him their combined support to run for president in 2016, as long as he did not challenge Hillary for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and he accepted that deal.
I agree with Mr. Friedman that we need "greener" technology and industry. But when he uses "distributed solar power" for the army as an example, I disagree.
The most important thing we can do to strengthen our military and ensure that it stays the most technologically advanced fighting machine on the planet is simply to keep it out of stupid wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) and use the money saved to research and develop nuclear fusion power generation and/or thousands of nuclear fission power plants across the nation. Then, we will starve our enemies of today of the funds which they are using to threaten and terrorize us, and our GDP will grow so far and so fast that we could increase R&D throughout all of our industries and government. In such a setting, our military could not help but to become smarter and more powerful, since a strong economy generates more government revenue, and that revenue can in turn purchase more R&D for the military and more technology for fighting future defensive wars.
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)