Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill

Posted on July 19, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Films, Links, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Taxes, Technology, Video |

  

“…Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans — in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen. “

~Al Gore

 

George Carlin – Saving the Planet

AL GORE: Green Energy by 2018 (7/17 Speech)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqlXid_ankQ

 

AL Gore Meet The Press Part 1 July 20 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tK_nGs3UfE

 

AL Gore Meet The Press Part 2 July 20 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBr3saNeZbo&feature=related

 

Eye To Eye: Al Gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEuU42qijmo

 

First Person: Former VP Al Gore Talks Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9ibqGEhjg

 

GORE: On Coal and a New Power Grid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X4REcq6qk0

 

Al Gore Snowjob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8

 

The Myth about Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig&feature=related

 

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

 

Global Warming Hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY

 

Penn and Teller on Nuclear Energy – Pt.1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrUDSzVyT20&feature=related

 

Penn and Teller on Nuclear Energy – Pt. 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx9Cd3vURiE&feature=related

 

Penn and Teller on Nuclear Energy – Pt. 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNid_qi7bGU&feature=related

 

There is no climate crisis except in Al Gore’s mind.

Climate continues to change. Nothing new here or to get worried about.

We are still in the current ice age and are overdue for another period of glaciation.

When will this occurr, nobody really knows.

Enjoy global warming why you can, the big chill is coming sooner or latter.

Al Gore continues to lie and try to scare people into taking action based upon government funded junk science of computer climate models.

In addition to the increased demand for energy by developing countries such as China and India, the US government through regulations and laws has restricted the production of energy in the United States and thereby reduced the supply. The result– higher prices due in part to the Federal government.

The main reason both gasoline and electrical power has been increasing in price is government regulation  in the market to stop the drilling for oil and the prevention of the building of nuclear and coal-fired plants and oil refineries.

A second reason the price of gasoline and electrical power has been increasing is due to state and federal government significantly increasing taxes on these energy sources.

Without these government regulations and taxes, there would be an abundance of both oil and electrical power at affordable prices.

The Federal government is the problem and not the solution to more affordable energy for generating electricity, moving vehicles and heating.

More government subsidies and tax credits for solar and wind power is  taxing all Americans to pay a few that benefit from the subsidies. This is exactly what is happening with ethanol subsidies that is resulting in rising gasoline and food prices for all the American people.

Glaciers all over the world have been both advancing and retreating from time immemorial.

The same is true of the polar ice packs. 

Frankly the American people could care less.

Only those with a vested interest in scaring people and profiting from it maintain that man is responsible for global warming. 

Please prove that man is the primary cause of global warming.

Gore knows scientists cannot prove this hypothesis.

Man has very little to do with with climate change and is certainly not the primary or even secondary cause.

Until Gore can prove that man is the primary cause for global warming, none of Gore’s policy recommendations should be given any consideration.

Gore’s policy recommendations, if followed, would wreck the United States economy and result in millions of people losing their jobs.

He favors a cap and trade tax that would increase the cost of all good and services produced and consumed in the United States.

The goal of producing all of America’s energy from carbon-free sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal in the next ten years is not challenging, it is impossibe without huge and very costly government subsidies that would require a massive tax increase.

Let us briefly review the numbers to get the big picture.

In the United States the primary fuels are:

  1. Oil
  2. Natural Gas
  3. Coal
  4. Uranium
  5. Hydro
  6. Wood

The three primary uses for these fuels are as follows:

  1. Transportation: move vehicles
  2. Heating
  3. Electricity.

For transportation the primary fuel is oil.

For heating the primary fuels are natural gas and oil with a small percentage supplied by wood.

For electricity the primary fuels are coal, uranium, natural gas, and hydro.

In round number the United States uses about 110 Quads of energy per year and growing of which 40% is used to produce electricity, 30% is used to move vehicles and 30% to produce heat.

Although the numbers change from month to month, and from year to year, in round numbers about 51% of electricity in the United States comes from coal fired plants, 20% from nuclear fired plants, 19% from natural gas fired plants, and 6% from hydro powered plants. These four sources account for over 96% of the electricity produced in the United States. 

“…Coal-fired plants contributed 50.1 percent of the Nation’s electric power, year-to-date. Nuclear plants contributed 19.7 percent, 19.2 percent was generated at natural gas-fired plants, and 1.2 percent was generated at petroleum-fired plants (Figure 1). Conventional hydroelectric power provided 6.2 percent of the total, while other renewables (primarily biomass, but also geothermal, solar, and wind) and other miscellaneous energy sources generated the remaining electric power. Figure 2 shows net generation by month for the last 12 months. …”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

Solar, wind and geothermal produces less than 1% of the electricity in this country.

Despite decades of subsidies and tax credits promoting the use of solar, wind and geothermal power, they account for less then 1% of electricity generation.

Assume for the moment that the automotive industry does produce affordable cars and trucks that can run on electricity.

Assume further that more houses and business can obtain heat from electricity.

What this means is that instead of 40% of our energy going toward the production of electrical power, a rising percentage of electricity would  be used for transportation as a substitute for oil and for heating as substitute for oil and natural gas.

The only affordable way this can happen is to increase electricity production from coal, uranium and natural gas powered plants.

Al Gore knows or should know as does any one who has looked at the numbers that alternative renewable energy from wind, solar, and geothermal cannot supply the energy  needs of the US.

Gore is attempting to destroy the America economy with his continuing disinformation campaign and policy recommendations.

Solar, wind and geothermal power cannot even come close to producing enough electricity to totally replace the electrical power produced by coal, nuclear and natural gas given the state of technology today. 

The technology for both solar panels and wind generated power is simply not competitive. This is the reason solar and wind power needs to be subsidized by the government using tax dollars.

If solar and wind could deliver the required energy at affordable prices, it would not need government subsidies.

Companies and investors would have had  every incentive to make it happen.

The American people want affordable energy not more talk and lies.

Let the planet and climate take care of itself.

The United States needs to follow the lead of China and start building  coal and nuclear powered plants to significantly increase the supply of electrical power and grow our economy.

When wind, solar, and geothermal energy can compete in the market place without government subsidies and tax credits, I am sure the American people will gladly buy from a company offering electricity at a lower price.

Gore is curiously silent about nuclear energy most likely for political as well as investment reasons.

There are currently 104 commercial nuclear generating plants in the United States and 439 world wide.

 Nuclear power is the one source of electrical power generation that could in fact achieve or meet his challenge.

 Although it would be a stretch requiring a moratorium on lawsuits that could delay construction, the United States could increase the amount of electricity produced by nuclear power plants from 19% to over 80% of all electricity generation if roughly 400 nuclear power plants were built over the next ten year.  This would be a very ambitious large scale construction program, but is doable.

Construction of a nuclear power plant takes from four to ten years.

France is a very excellent example for the United States to follow in how to construct nuclear plants that are more or less standardized and produced along manufacturing lines instead of each plant being a customized and unique nuclear power plant. This approach facilitates rapid construction.

Let’s Do It Like France Does It: Nuclear Power

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-rKBrs7kYE

France Relies on Nuclear Power – VOA Story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RpJ2u2EzhU

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide

(March 2008)

  • Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily but not dramatically, with about 30 reactors under construction in 12 countries. 
  • Most reactors on order or planned are in the Asian region, though plans are firming for new units in Europe, the USA and Russia. 
  • Significant further capacity is being created by plant upgrading. 
  • Plant life extension programs are maintaining capacity, in USA particularly. 

Today there are some 439 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries plus Taiwan, with a combined capacity of about 370 GWe. In 2006 these provided 2658 billion kWh, about 16% of the world’s electricity.

About 34 power reactors are currently being constructed in 11 countries (see Table below), notably China, South Korea, Japan and Russia.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has significantly increased its projection of world nuclear generating capacity. It now anticipates at least 60 new plants in the next 15 years, making 430 GWe in place in 2020 – 130 GWe more than projected in 2000 and 16% more than actually operating in 2006. The change is based on specific plans and actions in a number of countries, including China, India, Russia, Finland and France, coupled with the changed outlook due to the Kyoto Protocol. This would give nuclear power a 17% share in electricity production in 2020. The fastest growth is in Asia.

It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. These included 47 in USA, 42 in France and 18 in Japan. The average power was 923.5 MWe. So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1000 MWe unit worldwide every 5 days.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html

Nuclear power in France

“In France, as of 2002, Électricité de France (EDF) — the country’s main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country’s 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2004, these plants produce 99.8% of both EDF’s and France’s power production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage. In the same year, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power (78.8%).[1]

France is the world’s largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.[1][2]

In 2006, the French Government asked Areva and EDF to build a next generation nuclear reactor, the EPR (European Pressurized Reactor), at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant. This was followed in 2008 by an Presidential announcement of another new EPR, spurred by high oil and gas prices.[3] A site for that unit should be selected in 2009, and construction should start in 2011. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

U.S. Nuclear Reactors

“Nuclear Reactor (defined): A device in which a nuclear fission chain reaction occurs under controlled conditions so that the heat yield can be harnessed or the neutron beams utilized.

Introduction: As of December 31, 2007, there are 104 commercial nuclear generating units that are fully licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate in the United States. Of these 104 reactors, 69 are categorized a pressurized water reactors (PWRs) totaling 65,100 net megawatts (electric) and 35 units are boiling water reactors (BWR) totaling 32,300 net megawatts (electric). …”

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html

 The language used in Al Gore’s speech smacks of an arrogant totalitarian democrat.

Al Gore

A Generational Challenge to Repower America

“There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more — if more should be required — the future of human civilization is at stake. …”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-gore/a-generational-challenge_b_113359.html

What I and many others found offensive about Al Gore’s speech is his arrogant and frankly totalitarian tone.

The person who should  watch his language as well as step aside and retire from public life is Al Gore.

This man is a menace and should be challenged.

Gore is trying to destroy the US energy industy and in turn the US economy!

The late Julian Simon was prescient in his assessment of Al Gore: 

Julian Simon Remembered:
It’s A Wonderful Life

“..So for more than 15 years I was privileged to occupy a front-row seat from which I watched as Simon thoroughly and often single-handedly capsized the prevailing Malthusian orthodoxy. He routed nearly every prominent environmental scaremonger of our time: from the Club of Rome, to Paul Ehrlich, to Lester Brown, to Al Gore. (After reading Earth in the Balance, Julian was convinced that Gore was one of the most dangerous men and one of the shallowest thinkers in all of American politics.) …”

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n2-1.html

Looks like Senator Obama, The Messiah–The Anointed One, has found his Vice-President running mate–Al Gore-The Messiah–2.0!

Run Al Run.

The American people  need to worry about the American elites with their anointed visions or delusions trying to use government coercion and social engineering to limit the liberty of the American people.

The distinct possiblity of Iran developing nuclear weapons and then using them to attack both Israel, Europe and the United States is a far greater risk to the survival of the United States and the future of civilization, than the possiblity of temperatures rising globally a few degrees over the next hundred years.

The detonation of nuclear weapons made in Iran in US cities by one of Iran’s surrogate terrorist groups should receive our attention not Al Gore’s questionable premise of a climate crisis and presumptious challenge that is impossible to achieve without massive increases in taxes and government regulations.

For the Al Gores of this world, the ends justify the means, and lying is perfectly acceptable, even when it is called something else–“over-representation of factual presentations”.

Everything but the Kitchen Cynic

“…    Q: There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?

Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. …”

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009785

For the United States to remain competitive in a global economy, there  needs to be a significant increase the generation of electricity.

The building of 100 new nuclear power plants over the next ten years is both an achievable and prudent goal that private enterprise should be encouraged to meet. 

Both Congress and the President should expedite this not through subsidies, but by relief from government regulation that currently results in lawsuits  that delay the building of nuclear plants.

Should the world be entering another little ice age as scientists predict, then even more electricity will be needed in the United States for heating.

Building 400 nuclear power plants over the next forty years should seriously be considered.

Only significant scientific and technology breakthroughs in solar, wind and batteries would enable solar, wind and geothermal to produce 10% of the electricity of the United States. This is more than ten times what they are currently producing.

The Gore challenge is at best misguided at worst self-serving and destructive. 

 

LOL: The Voice of The American People

Alternative Energy Sources…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTJAI1oushw

Hybrid Cars…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io2L7ggOTUg

John McCain wants to LOWER Gas prices…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW8W_KS52FI&feature=user

 

Those computer aided scare mongering climate modeler alarmists cannot make up their minds.

Forget about global warming and get out your overcoats and long-underwear.

Yes, global cooling in the form of a new ice age is coming.

The Big Chill (1 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeBTy-_ttZ0&feature=related

The Big Chill (2 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-BPg3plMq4&feature=related

The Big Chill (3 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEP6tpNyAfg

The Big Chill (4 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBEGo_CHzEM&feature=related

The Big Chill (5 of 5)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWSjBp1TkIY&feature=related

 The Big Chill – transcript

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml

 Are you scared yet?

 

 the rolling stones – you can’t always get what you want

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzz1VEN1SEk

 

The Big Chill Funeral

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiw_3olyJ2c

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’

By Thomas Sowell

“…The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.

The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.

Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.

The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is. …”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdiOWE0YWQwMTg4YTlhOThmNDdkNTFmNTg1MjBkZDM=

My Nobel Moment

By JOHN R. CHRISTY

“…Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world’s energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 — roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It’s a dent.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit “global warming.”

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize.

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

 

E-Team

Providing Accurate Information on Energy & Environment Issues

Policy Issues: Impacts and Responses

Experts

http://eteam.ncpa.org/issues/?c=impacts-and-responses

 

Gore’s Goal: Former V.P. Lays Down a Green Gauntlet

“…But not everything in the speech was political back-and-forth or lofty plans to overhaul America’s energy habits in a decade. One of the most pressing priorities, Mr. Gore said, was the overhaul of America’s aged and rickety electricity-transmission system, which costs loads of money today and stands in the way of real clean-energy progress:

At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

Texas isn’t waiting for Nobel-winners in Washington to give the signal. The Lone Star State, already the national leader in wind power, approved a $4.9 billion expansion of its transmission system, AP reports. That will make it possible to take wind from the windy, western parts to places people live and work. …”

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/07/17/gores-goal-former-vp-lays-down-a-green-gauntlet/

 

Global Warming – what do the numbers show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA

 

Climate Change – has it been cancelled?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU&feature=related

 

Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHZOYtAztU&feature=related

 

Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of Co2 part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9IHKfzDdn8&feature=related

 

CO2 and Climate Change: 1/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOi1Pnm4m0U

 

CO2 and Climate Change: 2/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iVAuqGebUI&feature=related

 

CO2 and Climate Change: 3/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySAGYKsCJyI&feature=related

 

CO2 and Climate Change: 4/4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9HcashWNFs&feature=related 

 

No smoking hot spot

“…But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything. …”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

 

Gore’s Challenge For Renewable Energy; US To Renewable Sources Of Energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipfQR3aGpg

 

The Global Warming Logic Tree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlXLIXYBB3Y&feature=related

 

Glenn Beck: Global Warming greatest scam in history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

 

Glenn Beck on The NY Times Attacking Al Gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9NTKL9ONE

 

Global Warming: What Is Gore Afraid Of?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zklScbI0tbo&feature=related 

 

Five Ways to Lower Gasoline Prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47EkL8crjNs

 

Lord Al Gore The Global Warming Fascist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9WFDcZxT0s

 

AAl Gore: just plain nuts l Gore: just plain nuts

http://commonsensepoliticalthought.com/?p=2939 

 

Dennis Miller unloads on Al Gore, other greens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ&feature=related

 

More Scientists don’t see CO2 as temperature driver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvxGbH8Mqw&feature=related

 

Global warming is socialism and political movemnt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2J-zHo-ILw&feature=related

 

Is Al Gore Nuts?

“…Frankly no serious analyst is suggesting that within 10 years, given the state of technology and the best case forecast capacity, that solar can make up more than a small single digit fraction of even electricity needs or that wind can make up more than a meaningful minority share (let alone after doubling the global power demand by replacing liquid fuels in cars with electricity, which Al Gore also suggests), especially given lead times on power plants and transmission lines. …”

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9994015-54.html

 

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?

“…Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.

But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.

If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?

Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery’s challenge. …”

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20873

 

Al Gore Goes Full-On Totalitarian (Also, His Meal Ticket Looks to Be Going Away, Quickly)

“…Gore has given an almost pitch-perfect fascist speech. It hits every important element: a concocted existential crisis to mobilize the entire nation, a demand to subsume the will of the individual to the will of the State, a call to cast out dissenters as dangerous, and appeals to speedy action and change.

It also, like fascism, aggregates power to the elites, who stand to profit quite handsomely from the arrangement.

Luckily for us, Gore’s increasingly totalitarian demands are likely to be outpaced by the very science he contorts to suit his purposes. Dr. David Evans, who once served in the Australian Government’s Greenhouse Office, calls the entire notion of anthropogenic global warming a crock that is not the least bit supported by the evidence. (via Gabriel Malor). In fact, the science is pointing away from APG so much that the “alarmists” (to use his word) are ignoring the real data and making up their own. …”

http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/07/17/al-gore-goes-full-on-totalitarian-also-his-meal-ticket-looks-to-be-going-away-quickly/

 

High Fuel and Electricity Prices — Made in Washington

“…This stagnation has been caused by United States government taxation, regulation, and sponsorship of litigation, which has made the U.S. a very unfavorable place to produce energy. Moreover, the U.S. government has spent vast sums of tax money subsidizing inferior energy technologies for political purposes.

The Wall Street Journal recently estimated that 381 nuclear power plants are in design or construction throughout the world, yet not one nuclear power plant has been constructed in the United States in more than 30 years.

United States hydrocarbon resources are vast. Untapped U.S. oil and gas resources are enormous, and the U.S. also has 25% of the world’s coal. Coal, oil, and gas are interchangeable. For example, coal can be liquefied at costs far below current world oil prices. The liquid hydrocarbon fuel available from American coal reserves exceeds the crude oil reserves of the entire world. …”

“…So, the greatest industrial, technological, and scientific power the world has ever known — created and made possible through institutionalized human freedom — is on the road to being turned into a second-rate nation with diminished human freedom. This is being accomplished by political destruction of America’s energy industries and of many of her other industries by similar means.

If we continue to allow our politicians to debase our currency at moneyfactory.com and to diminish our industrial capabilities through restrictions on energy production, we had best be prepared to endure the logical consequences — gasoline at more than $10 per gallon, $2,000 monthly electricity and gas bills, and, ultimately, energy rationing and technological poverty.

Why not place a mirror in front of your television set during the next political commercial? Then, look at the visage in the mirror and ask, “Do you really prefer to elect politicians who will continue to make the United States uninhabitable for the industries that fuel my car, power my air conditioner, light my lights, power my computer and wide-screen television, and allow my employer to remain in business?”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24318

 

Dissecting Al Gore’s $5 Trillion Energy Plan

July 18, 2008 11:01 AM ET | James Pethokoukis

“…By my math, using Pickens’s numbers, converting the whole economy to renewable energy in a short period of time might cost $5 trillion—and that is if you assume that government-led projects come in on budget. (Remember, the current U.S. gross domestic product is $12 trillion.) That would be like creating another Japan. Or fighting World War II all over again. The latter analogy is especially apt since the Gore Plan would effectively transform our free-market economy into a command-and-control war economy full of rationing and scarcity. Of course, there are many folks like Gore who view global warming as the moral equivalent of war. But Gore would extend the concept into the economic equivalent of war. Again, all this makes sense if you think we are doomed otherwise. …”

“…This isn’t the first time Gore has made a proposal with jaw-dropping economic consequences. Environmental economist William Nordhaus ran the numbers on Gore’s idea to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus found that while such a plan would indeed reduce the maximum increase in global temperatures to between 1.3 and 1.6 degrees Celsius, it did so “at very high cost” of between $17 trillion and $22 trillion over the long term, as opposed to doing nothing. (Again, just for comparative purposes, the entire global economy is about $50 trillion.) …”

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/7/18/dissecting-al-gores-5-trillion-energy-plan.html

 

Coal-Fired Power Plants Provide

Largest Share of Electricity Supply 

Coal-fired power plants (including utilities, independent

power producers, and end-use CHP) continue to

be the dominant source of electricity generation

through 2030 (Figure 61). Although natural-gas-fired

plants with lower capital costs make up most of the

capacity additions over the next 10 years, more

coal-fired plants are built in the later years as natural

gas fuel costs increase. The natural gas share of

generation falls from 20 percent in 2006 to 14 percent

in 2030, while the coal share increases from 49 percent

to 54 percent.

Federal tax incentives, State renewable energy programs,

and rising fossil fuel prices lead to increases in

renewable and nuclear capacity and generation, as

new plants are built. The generation share from

renewable capacity increases by 32 percent from 2006

to 2030 and represents 13 percent of total electricity

supply in 2030. With capacity additions and improvements

in performance at existing nuclear facilities,

nuclear generation also increases; however, the

nuclear share of total generation falls slightly, from

19 percent in 2006 to 18 percent in 2030.

Technology choices for new plants and utilization of

existing capacity are affected by relative fuel costs

and changes in environmental policies. For example,

natural-gas-fired plants are projected to supply 21

percent of total electricity supply in 2030 in the low

price case but only 10 percent in the high price case,

but coal-fired plants supply 49 percent of the total in

the low price case and 57 percent in the high price

case. Changes in environmental policies could also

have a significant effect on the fuel shares of total

generation.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/trend_3.pdf 

Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors)    

Electric Power Monthly with data for February 2008
  Report Released: July 10, 2008
  Next Release Date: Mid-August 2008

Table 1.1. Net Generation by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors), 1994 through February 2008
(Thousand Megawatthours)
Period
Coal[1]
Petroleum Liquids[2]
Petroleum Coke
Natural Gas
Other Gases[3]
Nuclear
Hydroelectric Conventional
Other Renewables[4]
Hydroelectric Pumped Storage
Other[5]
Total
1994 1,690,694 98,440 7,461 460,219 13,319 640,440 260,126 76,535 -3,378 3,667 3,247,522
1995 1,709,426 66,944 7,610 496,058 13,870 673,402 310,833 73,965 -2,725 4,104 3,353,487
1996 1,795,196 73,521 7,890 455,056 14,356 674,729 347,162 75,796 -3,088 3,571 3,444,188
1997 1,845,016 82,773 9,782 479,399 13,351 628,644 356,453 77,183 -4,040 3,612 3,492,172
1998 1,873,516 116,859 11,941 531,257 13,492 673,702 323,336 77,088 -4,467 3,571 3,620,295
1999 1,881,087 107,276 10,785 556,396 14,126 728,254 319,536 79,423 -6,097 4,024 3,694,810
2000 1,966,265 102,160 9,061 601,038 13,955 753,893 275,573 80,906 -5,539 4,794 3,802,105
2001 1,903,956 114,647 10,233 639,129 9,039 768,826 216,961 70,769 -8,823 11,906 3,736,644
2002 1,933,130 78,701 15,867 691,006 11,463 780,064 264,329 79,109 -8,743 13,527 3,858,452
2003 1,973,737 102,734 16,672 649,908 15,600 763,733 275,806 79,487 -8,535 14,045 3,883,185
2004 1,978,620 100,040 20,731 708,854 16,766 788,528 268,417 82,604 -8,488 14,483 3,970,555
2005 2,013,179 100,095 22,427 757,974 16,317 781,986 270,321 87,213 -6,558 12,468 4,055,423
2006
January 169,258 4,251 1,893 43,529 1,326 71,912 27,437 8,442 -533 1,143 328,658
February 158,648 3,270 1,664 47,152 1,260 62,616 24,762 7,369 -447 1,040 307,333
March 161,355 2,434 1,601 54,585 1,421 63,721 24,625 8,210 -435 1,214 318,730
April 141,456 3,054 1,654 55,795 1,352 57,567 28,556 7,849 -587 1,162 297,858
May 157,051 2,920 1,520 65,302 1,440 62,776 30,818 8,019 -444 1,213 330,616
June 169,726 4,079 1,708 80,787 1,326 68,391 29,757 7,775 -423 1,134 364,260
July 187,860 5,142 1,882 107,862 1,374 72,186 25,439 8,098 -638 1,215 410,421
August 189,488 6,595 1,793 106,289 1,474 72,016 21,728 7,881 -695 1,193 407,763
September 161,630 3,057 1,603 72,402 1,299 66,642 17,201 7,702 -629 1,146 332,055
October 161,434 3,370 1,537 70,351 1,358 57,509 17,055 8,279 -507 1,181 321,567
November 159,472 3,366 1,393 53,161 1,216 61,392 20,272 8,290 -553 1,149 309,159
December 173,547 3,117 1,460 55,829 1,215 70,490 21,596 8,509 -667 1,188 336,283
Total 1,990,926 44,655 19,709 813,044 16,060 787,219 289,246 96,423 -6,558 13,977 4,064,702
2007
January 175,919 4,438 1,547 59,653 1,322 74,006 26,405 8,512 -572 1,138 352,369
February 163,590 7,710 1,250 58,087 1,173 65,225 18,648 8,119 -447 1,061 324,415
March 159,904 4,081 1,252 56,363 1,419 64,305 24,272 8,890 -458 1,172 321,198
April 146,516 3,872 1,184 60,729 1,337 57,301 23,854 8,739 -374 1,151 304,309
May 157,841 3,540 1,343 66,469 1,341 65,025 25,930 8,557 -547 1,202 330,701
June 173,990 4,238 1,524 81,185 1,361 68,923 22,860 8,382 -523 1,142 363,084
July 185,433 4,268 1,325 97,046 1,366 72,729 22,623 8,118 -595 1,190 393,503
August 190,681 5,877 1,450 120,761 1,339 72,751 20,002 8,631 -651 1,213 422,053
September 169,839 3,648 1,256 87,741 1,266 67,582 14,667 8,618 -756 1,119 354,981
October 162,642 3,551 1,163 78,321 1,164 61,690 14,826 8,867 -786 1,171 332,609
November 159,525 1,969 1,073 60,159 1,168 64,969 15,727 8,607 -685 1,049 313,561
December 174,691 2,765 1,385 66,696 1,160 71,983 18,498 8,948 -601 1,206 346,731
Total 2,020,572 49,956 15,752 893,211 15,414 806,487 248,312 102,988 -6,994 13,815 4,159,514
2008
January 182,579 3,136 1,313 72,090 1,249 70,686 22,358 9,647 -754 962 363,268
February 167,000 2,427 1,200 59,902 1,126 64,936 20,234 8,679 -375 778 325,906
Total 349,579 5,563 2,513 131,992 2,376 135,623 42,593 18,326 -1,129 1,740 689,175
Year-to-Date
2006 327,906 7,521 3,557 90,680 2,586 134,527 52,198 15,811 -979 2,183 635,991
2007 339,509 12,148 2,797 117,741 2,495 139,231 45,053 16,631 -1,019 2,199 676,784
2008 349,579 5,563 2,513 131,992 2,376 135,623 42,593 18,326 -1,129 1,740 689,175
Rolling 12 Months Ending in February
2007 2,002,529 49,282 18,949 840,104 15,970 791,922 282,101 97,243 -6,597 13,993 4,105,495
2008 2,030,642 43,371 15,468 907,463 15,294 802,879 245,852 104,684 -7,104 13,356 4,171,904
  [1] Anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, lignite, waste coal, and coal synfuel.
  [2] Distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, jet fuel, kerosene, and waste oil.
  [3] Blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.
  [4] Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.
  [5] Non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuel, and miscellaneous technologies.
  Notes: Beginning with 2001 data, non-biogenic municipal solid waste and tire-derived fuels are reclassified as non-renewable energy sources and included in “Other”.  Biogenic municipal solid waste is included in “Other Renewables.” See Glossary for definitions. Values for 2007 and 2008 are preliminary. Values for January through July 2007 are revised. Values for 2006 and prior years are final. – See Technical Notes for a discussion of the sample design for the Form EIA-923 and predecessor forms. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.
  Sources: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report;” Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-920 “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;” and predecessor forms. Beginning with 2008 data, the Form EIA-923, “Power Plant Operations Report,” replaced the following: Form EIA-906, “Power Plant Report;” Form EIA-920, “Combined Heat and Power Plant Report;”  Form EIA-423, “Monthly Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants Report;” and  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC Form 423, “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants.”

Ice age to warming – and back?

“…While policymakers have worried long and hard about global warming, which might raise Earth’s temperature 1.4 to 5.8 degrees C by century’s end, a growing body of evidence suggests natural forces could just as easily plunge Earth’s average temperatures downward. In the past, the planet’s climate has changed 10 degrees in as little as 10 years. …”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html

Last glacial period

“The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch. It began about 110,000 years ago and ended between 10,000 and 15,000 BP. During this period there were several changes between glacier advance and retreat. The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences).

The last glacial period is sometimes colloquially referred to as the last ice age, though this use is incorrect because an ice age is a longer period of cold temperature in which ice sheets cover large parts of the Earth. Glacials, on the other hand, refer to colder phases within an ice age that separate interglacials. Thus, the end of the last glacial period is not the end of the last ice age. The end of the last glacial period was about 12,500 years ago, while the end of the last ice age has not yet come: little evidence points to a stop of the glacial-interglacial cycle of the last million years. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period

 

Charlie Rose – Alternative Energy / Internet Technology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ngECk1FQk

 

Ice Age

“An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth‘s surface and atmosphere, resulting in an expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Glaciologically, ice age is often used to mean a period of ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres; by this definition we are still in an ice age (because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist). More colloquially, when speaking of the last few million years, ice age is used to refer to colder periods with extensive ice sheets over the North American and Eurasian continents: in this sense, the most recent ice age peaked about 11,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

 

Why were there four long, generally cool periods during which continent-sized glaciers advanced and retreated?

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_4_cool_periods.html

 

Geology: Glaciers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gce9SqEy7BE

 

300 year history of renewable energy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIXuXlfKyrc

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJG6pqh3q28&feature=related

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF0uOotKhrc

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlYRWb3zBYY

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aJtWPPjGTc

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFeRFeo_01Q

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su_h1aXSSo0

 

Lesson 19 Glaciation – Part 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82vPk6eVUhY

 

Are We on the Brink of a ‘New Little Ice Age?’

“…It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.”

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046 

 

World Nuclear Power Reactors 2007-08 and Uranium Requirements

9 June 2008

 

  NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2007 REACTORS OPERABLE May 2008 REACTORS UNDER CONSTRUCTION May 2008 REACTORS PLANNED May 2008 REACTORS PROPOSED May 2008 URANIUM REQUIRED 2008
billion kWh  % e  No.  MWe  No.  MWe  No. MWe  No.  MWe  tonnes U
Argentina
6.7
6.2
2
935
1
692
1
740
1
740
123
Armenia
2.35
43.5
1
376
0
0
0
0
1
1000
51
Bangladesh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2000
0
Belarus
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2000
0
0
0
Belgium
46
54
7
5728
0
0
0
0
0
0
1011
Brazil
11.7
2.8
2
1901
0
0
1
1245
4
4000
303
Bulgaria 
13.7
32
2
1906
0
0
2
1900
0
0
261
Canada* 
88.2
14.7
18
12652
2
1500
3
3300
4
4400
1665
China 
59.3
1.9
11
8587
7
6700
24
26320
76
62600
1396
Czech Republic 
24.6
30.3
6
3472
0
0
0
0
2
1900
619
Egypt 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1000
0
Finland 
22.5
29
4
2696
1
1600
0
0
1
1000
1051
France 
420.1
77
59
63473
1
1630
0
0
1
1600
10527
Germany 
133.2
26
17
20339
0
0
0
0
0
0
3332
Hungary 
13.9
37
4
1826
0
0
0
0
2
2000
271
India 
15.8
2.5
17
3779
6
2976
10
8560
9
4800
978
Indonesia 
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2000
2
2000
0
Iran 
0
0
0
0
1
915
2
1900
1
300
143
Israel 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1200
0
Japan 
267
27.5
55
47577
2
2285
11
14945
1
1100
7569
Kazakhstan 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
300
0
Korea DPR (North) 
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
950
0
0
0
Korea RO (South) 
136.6
35.3
20
17533
3
3000
5
6600
0
0
3109
Lithuania 
9.1
64.4
1
1185
0
0
0
0
2
3200
225
Mexico 
9.95
4.6
2
1310
0
0
0
0
2
2000
246
Netherlands 
4.0
4.1
1
485
0
0
0
0
0
0
98
Pakistan 
2.3
2.34
2
400
1
300
2
600
2
2000
65
Romania 
7.1
13
2
1310
0
0
2
1310
1
655
174
Russia 
148
16
31
21743
7
4920
10
11960
25
22280
3365
Slovakia 
14.2
54
5
2064
2
840
0
0
0
0
313
Slovenia 
5.4
42
1
696
0
0
0
0
1
1000
141
South Africa 
12.6
5.5
2
1842
0
0
1
165
24
4000
303
Spain 
52.7
17.4
8
7442
0
0
0
0
0
0
1398
Sweden 
64.3
46
10
9016
0
0
0
0
0
0
1418
Switzerland 
26.5
43
5
3220
0
0
0
0
3
4000
537
Thailand
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4000
0
Turkey 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
4500
0
Ukraine 
87.2
48
15
13168
0
0
2
1900
20
27000
1974
United Kingdom 
57.5
15
19
11035
0
0
0
0
0
0
2199
USA 
806.6
19.4
104
99049
0
0
12
15000
20
26000
18918
Vietnam 
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2000
0
WORLD**
2608
16
439
371,989
36
29,958
93
101,395
218
192,975
64,615
 
billion kWh
% e
No.
MWe
No.
MWe
No.
MWe
No.
MWe
tonnes U
 
NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION 2007
REACTORS OPERATING
REACTORS BUILDING
ON ORDER or PLANNED
PROPOSED
URANIUM REQUIRED
 

Sources: 
Reactor data: WNA to 30/05/08.
IAEA- for nuclear electricity production & percentage of electricity (% e) 5/08.
WNA: Global Nuclear Fuel Market (reference scenario) – for U.

 

Operating = Connected to the grid;
Building/Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way;
Planned = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8 years, or construction well advanced but suspended indefinitely;
Proposed = clear intention or proposal but still without firm commitment. Planned and Proposed are generally gross MWe;
TWh = Terawatt-hours (billion kilowatt-hours), MWe = Megawatt net (electrical as distinct from thermal), kWh = kilowatt-hour.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

How To Build 6,000 Nuclear Plants by 2050

We asked nuclear engineer James Muckerheide how many nuclear plants would be needed to bring the world’s population up to a decent standard of living, and how to do it. Here are his answers.

In 1997-1998, I made an estimate of how many nuclear plants would be needed in the world by 2050. It reflects an economy that is directed to provide the energy necessary to meet basic human needs, especially for the developing regions.

The initiative required is not unlike what the U.S. government did to build the nation: for example, to bring electric power to rural areas; to provide transportation by building roads and highways and canals, and the intercontinental railroads, and airlines; to develop water supplies and irrigation systems; to provide telephone service, medical and hospital services; and many other programs that were essential to develop an advanced society, and to lift regions out of poverty.

However, we need to do more to meet those needs, both within the United States and for the developing world, to bring those people into the economic mainstream, instead of leaving them to be just cheap sources of our labor and raw materials.

The Role of Nuclear Energy

My projections simply envisioned nuclear energy growing from supplying 6% of world energy needs today to one third of the energy demand in 2050, which was taken to grow by about a factor of 3 from 2000. But, of course, that begs the question: Can fossil fuels continue to provide energy at or slightly above present levels, to produce about one third of the energy demand in 2050? And is it likely that hydro, wind energy, and other alternatives can provide the other third, which is also the equivalent of 100% of today’s total energy use?

So, nuclear power in 2050 would be roughly 18 times its current use. This requires fewer than the number of plants I projected in 1997, and is equivalent to about 5,100 1,000-megawatt-electric (MWe) plants. …”

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3225build_6000_nukes.html

 

Consructing a lot of nuclear powere plants is not material constrained

“…One of the common arguments that some in the environmental movement have against nuclear power is “we cannot make enough reactors” and if we do then the price will go up. I will show that historically the world build at a reasonable fast rate (28/year). Currently there are more and more nuclear reactors on order and are being completed at about 8 per year. The material used is a fraction of what is available and will not be a major impact on material prices. The alternatives of coal, wind and hydro also are highly intensive in steel and concrete. The main thing that impacts a nuclear reactors construction cost is length of time to build and interest rates. People do not understand how much steel and concrete is made each year in the world and how many buildings and things are built.

Building 1,000 one gigwatt nuclear plants per year would use less than 10% of the worlds annual concrete and steel. Modern nuclear reactors need less than 40 metric tons of steel and 190 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt of average capacity. 1,000 one gigawatt nuclear plants per year would need 40 million metric tons of steel and 190 million cubic meters of concrete. World supplies in 2006 are 1.24-billion tons of steel per year & 2.283 billion tons of coal per year. …”

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/07/constructing-lot-of-nuclear-power.html

Economics of new nuclear power plants

“…Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in four years or less (42 months for CANDU ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for an EPR and 45 months for an ESBWR)[9] as opposed to over a decade for some previous plants. However, despite Japanese success with ABWRs, the first EPR (in Finland) is significantly behind schedule.

In some countries in the past (notably the U.S.), changes in licensing, inspection and certification of nuclear power plants added delays and construction costs to their construction. However, the regulatory processes for siting, licensing, and constructing have been standardized since their introduction, streamlining the construction of newer and safer designs.

In the U.S. many new regulations were put in place in the years before and again immediately after the Three Mile Island accident‘s partial meltdown, resulting in delaying plants’ operation by many years. The NRC has new regulations in place now, and the next plants will have NRC Final Design Approval before the customer buys them, and a Combined Construction and Operating License will be issued before construction starts, guaranteeing that if the plant is built as designed then it will be allowed to operate — thus avoiding lengthy hearings after completion.

The smallest nuclear power plant that can be built is often larger than other power plants, making it possible for a utility to build the other plants in smaller increments, or in areas of low power consumption. (However, several new designs are being targeted at smaller markets, such as PBMR, IRIS, and SSTAR).

In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are significantly diminished because of streamlined government licensing and certification procedures. In France, one model of reactor was type-certified, using a safety engineering process similar to the process used to certify aircraft models for safety. That is, rather than licensing individual reactors, the regulatory agency certified a particular design and its construction process to produce safe reactors. U.S. law permits type-licensing of reactors, a process which is being used on the AP1000 and the ESBWR.[10]

To encourage development of nuclear power, under the Nuclear Power 2010 Program the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has offered interested parties the opportunity to introduce France’s model for licensing and to subsidize 25% to 50% of the construction cost overruns due to delays for the first six new plants. Several applications were made, two sites have been chosen to receive new plants, and other projects are pending (see Nuclear Power 2010 Program). …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

 

Status of Potential New Commercial Nuclear Reactors in the United States  

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/com_reactors.pdf

 

Gas Prices and Energy Markets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VnoTiF1Y40

 

Solar panels future, energy generation and global warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqmurcUeEs

 

Robert Bryce Believes Energy Independence is a Pipe Dream

http://fora.tv/2008/03/18/Robert_Bryce_Believes_Energy_Independence_is_a_Pipe_Dream

 

LOL

Red State Update: Al Gore’s Electric Bill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItDuvjOY0B4

 

Red State Update: Gas Prices

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYS9CI3rFrQ

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

Al Gore: Agent of Influence or Useful Idiot of Disinformation

Al Gore: Agent of Influence and Planetary Propeller Head!

Al Gore’s Little White Lie: Man-Made Global Warming Causing Polar Bears To Drown 

Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? 

Clinton’s Cap and Trade Tax on The American People for Consuming Electricity and Driving Cars, SUVs and Trucks!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Presidential Election 2008: American Elites Vs. American People

Let Them Eat Cake Act: American Elites Killing and Starving The American People

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets 

Going Deep–Cool–Deep Ocean Water (DOW)–Ocean Power!

Saving The World: The Importance of Getting The Priorities Right

McCain: Cut–Drill–Victory vs. Obama: Increase–Talk–End 

 

 


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

64 Responses to “Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill”

RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed

[…] Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill […]

[…] Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill […]

[…] Al Gore 2.0 and The Coming Renewable Energy Ice Age–The Big Chill […]


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: