Obama is leaving his dying 'healthcare' scam to twist in the wind. He is now pushing for Cap and Trade, a so-called environmental pollution reduction measure that would not only NOT reduce pollution, it would raise your electric bill $3000 a year. Think how little you can afford that, then think how little the whole country could afford it.
Cap and trade WILL crush the United States' economy. Sacrificed on the altar of "green" energy.
For years, some of us have been saying that the entire cure for our energy problems is nuclear power generation. It is clean, renewable, reliable, and SAFE. But the watermelon environmentalists declare that it is horrible. Obama is risking their ire (I hope he gets it in full, by the way) in an attempt to get his cap and trade regulatory scheme in place.
Wait, what? How is cap and trade related to nuclear power?
It doesn't have to be. It's a sweetener for the Republicans who haven't seen the handwriting on the wall about cap and trade. A vote for Cappin' Trade is a vote to kill your political career and they should all know it by now. Obama is trying to convince you that he cares to increase the amount of nuclear power plants as a way to reduce pollution. The press is going out in a full-court press to spin this just the way he likes it. This is a red herring.
The Cap & Trade bill has some loan guarantees for the nuclear power generation industry, to help them get some power plants kick-started. Obama knows full well two things: 1) we could underwrite those loans entirely outside of the framework of the environmentalist/communist cap & trade scam, and 2) these plants won't get built anyway. There are too many environmental regulations to overcome, to meet even the least ambitious of pollution reduction timelines. Then there is the question of what to do with the spent fuel.
For anyone with half a brain, this is a no-brainer. Every other country that relies heavily on nuclear fuel recycles it. Jimmy Carter got all scared of terrorists getting their hands on the fuel en-route and forbade it to be recycled. You shouldn't have to worry about how awful Yucca Mountain could be for the environment. You should just turn the spent fuel back into fresh fuel again. Simple, no? That's why, IF YOU STAY ON YOUR SENATOR, Cap and Trade doesn't have to pass. Tell them to get the nuclear plants on line WITHOUT cap and trade.
Showing posts with label Jimmy Carter Sucks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jimmy Carter Sucks. Show all posts
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Monday, April 27, 2009
Jimmy Carter on Assault Weapons
Via Say Uncle. Carter doesn't think you should even want to own an assault weapon.
Mostly I wanted to have another entry in the "Jimmy Carter Sucks" category, but there are a few additional points to make: First, "assault weapon" is a scary term with no legal definition in the USA. He means "assault rifle" so let's go from there.
Assault rifles, as defined by US Federal law, are capable of select-fire, meaning they can fire one or more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger, based on the position of a selector switch. Assault weapons are very hard to get legally in the USA. They cost 5x to 20x more than 'one trigger pull for one shot' only "semi-automatic" weapons of exactly the same type. Also, they require an extensive background check, there are Federal requirements to report their location of storage and when you move you need to notify Uncle again. On top of that, there is a $200 fee (instituted, by the way, when $200 was worth what $2000 is today)
As Col. cooper repeatedly pointed out, machine guns are not good for killing people so much as they are for expending ammunition. Even a moderately well-trained operator will miss much more with an assault weapon set to automatic than one set to semi-automatic. There are very few instances where it is genuinely helpful to have a machine gun. Mostly they involve large numbers of enemy combatants at close quarters, especially in low light. Repelling boarders from your yacht at night is an ideal example. Another is taking out a whole squad of jack-booted thugs who have kicked your door in. The other type of situation where machine guns are more useful than semi-automatic guns is clearing the entire landscape, as with a door gunner coming into a "hot" landing zone raking a treeline with bullets.
Thing is, machine guns are expensive to operate. Useful ones will fire rifle bullets, which cost anywhere from $1 to $5 and up, for each shot. If you put 500 rounds into the forest, that is $2500 right there.
The only people that NEED machine guns are in combat.
The only people in combat are soldiers. Who becomes soldiers? Citizens.
Who is afraid of citizen-solders? Tyrants.
If someone wants you to NOT be able to own a $10,000 machine that costs $2500 a minute to operate, and they tell you it's for the children or because of gangs you know in advance that they are either lying or a complete ignoramus. Either way, we should not be making policy decisions based on their ideas.
If they don't realize the potential civilian applications of machine guns, even to the point of saying you shouldn't one to own one if you aren't a criminal (as with Jimmuh) they SUCK and should be quiet.
That is all.
Mostly I wanted to have another entry in the "Jimmy Carter Sucks" category, but there are a few additional points to make: First, "assault weapon" is a scary term with no legal definition in the USA. He means "assault rifle" so let's go from there.
Assault rifles, as defined by US Federal law, are capable of select-fire, meaning they can fire one or more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger, based on the position of a selector switch. Assault weapons are very hard to get legally in the USA. They cost 5x to 20x more than 'one trigger pull for one shot' only "semi-automatic" weapons of exactly the same type. Also, they require an extensive background check, there are Federal requirements to report their location of storage and when you move you need to notify Uncle again. On top of that, there is a $200 fee (instituted, by the way, when $200 was worth what $2000 is today)
As Col. cooper repeatedly pointed out, machine guns are not good for killing people so much as they are for expending ammunition. Even a moderately well-trained operator will miss much more with an assault weapon set to automatic than one set to semi-automatic. There are very few instances where it is genuinely helpful to have a machine gun. Mostly they involve large numbers of enemy combatants at close quarters, especially in low light. Repelling boarders from your yacht at night is an ideal example. Another is taking out a whole squad of jack-booted thugs who have kicked your door in. The other type of situation where machine guns are more useful than semi-automatic guns is clearing the entire landscape, as with a door gunner coming into a "hot" landing zone raking a treeline with bullets.
Thing is, machine guns are expensive to operate. Useful ones will fire rifle bullets, which cost anywhere from $1 to $5 and up, for each shot. If you put 500 rounds into the forest, that is $2500 right there.
The only people that NEED machine guns are in combat.
The only people in combat are soldiers. Who becomes soldiers? Citizens.
Who is afraid of citizen-solders? Tyrants.
If someone wants you to NOT be able to own a $10,000 machine that costs $2500 a minute to operate, and they tell you it's for the children or because of gangs you know in advance that they are either lying or a complete ignoramus. Either way, we should not be making policy decisions based on their ideas.
If they don't realize the potential civilian applications of machine guns, even to the point of saying you shouldn't one to own one if you aren't a criminal (as with Jimmuh) they SUCK and should be quiet.
That is all.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Jimmy Carter: Stupid or Evil?
Video at This Ain't Hell. . .
Of course we can trust hamas, because they are self-interested.
Except that a faithful mulsim has a different interest than you there Jimmuh.
Failure to recognize this critical reality is a large part of the reason we are in the mess we are in (Da War). It is evidence of either an evil, disingenuous personality or, as I believe, a mental disorder. Dr. Michael Savage calls this disorder "Liberalism."
Of course we can trust hamas, because they are self-interested.
Except that a faithful mulsim has a different interest than you there Jimmuh.
Failure to recognize this critical reality is a large part of the reason we are in the mess we are in (Da War). It is evidence of either an evil, disingenuous personality or, as I believe, a mental disorder. Dr. Michael Savage calls this disorder "Liberalism."
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Nuclear Energy: Makes Sense!
I mentioned it a while back, and here it is: America is stupid. And I agree wholeheartedly with Barack Hussein Obama*.
That is, American policy is stupid.
On nuclear generation of electricity.
What's especially stupid is that, of all the ways you can make electricity, with the possible exception of hydrodynamic or geothermal (which are hard to get going on the same scale as nuclear), nuclear energy is the MOST natural of all the ways we generate electricity!
Wind power, you say? I'm for it. Try getting a gigawatt in anything like the same footprint as a gigawatt nuclear facility. The wind pushes the blade which turns the mill, which makes power, which is conditioned and put on the grid.
Solar, you say? Leaving aside for the moment the argument that solar panels require more energy to produce than they will put out over the lifetime of the panel; the sun heats the cell, which makes electrons, which must be rectified and conditioned and then put on the grid.
Oil, coal, both filthy. Much better than they used to be, but compared to nuclear, filthy to make and filthy to use. Not to mention that a single truck can deliver the fuel to run a reactor for a few years, compared to trainloads of coal or constant-flowing pipelines of oil that get BURNED every DAY!
Natural gas, slightly less dirty than oil.
Nuclear power: we take a natural product straight out of the earth (some reactors can use raw ore), put it in a controlled environment, and it does the same thing it was doing underground. Yes, that is correct. Nuclear power generation is merely harvesting a NATURAL chemical reaction. The uranium, plutonium, etc., are turning into lead underground. We put them in a reactor and put them past critical mass, and they do it faster, making more heat. We take the heat to make power the same way you do with geothermal and hydrodynamic generation: spinning turbines. What is the waste product of nuclear electricity generation? Steam and heat. In france, there is one room in one city where they store highly radioactive waste. This waste has a half-life shorter than a human's half-life.
Hold on there.
Not tens or hundreds of thousands of years, single digits of decades half-life on the stuff they store until it is no longer dangerous.
That's France. In FRIKKIN FRANCE they are doing something better than we are!
In the US, we have over a hundred pools next to their reactors storing used uranium and a little plutonium, along with the stuff they keep in a single room in LeHavre.
What's the difference?
Jimmy Carter: worst. president. ever.
Some jerk stole some spent nuclear fuel in India and the world had a minor freak-out. Jimmuh had a major freak-out and said NO transporting nuclear fuel after it's used
okay, why can we transport it before it's used?
Because it's so deadly dangerous that workers have to use special protective equipment to handle the fuel rods that go into a reactor: gloves.
That's right, you can handle unused uranium fuel rods with gloves and not get dead, like you would handling spent rods. They get MORE radioactive when we use them. Crazy. You'd think if they got MORE radioactive, you could take them and stick them back in and use them some more! Right? I mean, RIGHT?
Right. In France, where 80+% of their power is nuclear, they recycle their spent fuel. So does UK, and all the other countries that are not stupid about it. 95% of the stuff in a used fuel rod from a nuclear reactor is useable fuel. That 95% is the stuff with half-lives so long we have to worry about people in a gozillion years getting into it and killing themselves. Yeah, when you spin that out, you get 5% of stuff with half-lives shorter than your own, and the rest is useful fuel.
Question: when is the last time CNN told you that half of the nuclear power generated in the USA is coming from old soviet nuclear bomb warheads? Never, you say? oh, really? Well, it is. We can move those puppies around enough to turn into useful fuel, but not the stuff that used to be useful fuel 6 years ago? Hmm. Makes sense to me.
*During the 'debates', (I can't believe he's the) candidate Obama said he's against Yucca Mountain as the place where we should store our nuclear fuel. He's against it because he's a lightweight. I'm against it because the spent fuel and old bombs should be turned into fuel, not long-term radioactive waste.
This is stupid, people. You want to talk about being green?
I thought you people WANTED to be recyclers! Why don't we recycle something we have heaping piles of lying all over the country?
*********
Safety. Nuclear is dangerous. Three Mile Island! Chernobyl!
Not. So. Fast.
Chernobyl was made soviet-style: zero safety precautions, shoddy maintenance, and poor training. It was literally an accident waiting to happen, and there is not a chance that a power plant of that design would be approved for construction in the USA. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion right there. Go to wikipedia and look it up if you don't agree.
TMI was fine. The safety measures took over and guess how many people got so much as a hangnail from the accident. None. Nobody was killed, nobody was hurt. The safety measures designed into the facility worked as designed and prevented any significant radiation being released into the environment. The core that melted down is currently safely contained and is LESS of a hazard than one of those pools of useful fuel rods sitting, rotting, all over the country. There has NEVER been an accident in a modern reactor that killed the NIMBYs that didn't want it to be built.
So, for no good reason, your electric and oil and gas bills are through the roof, because the majority of the politicians YOU voted for (if you even bothered to vote) refuse to allow the recycling of a valuable natural resource. Why? because they are beholden to the environmentalist socialist watermelon groups and think they will lose their jobs. Bold leadership there. Are you motivated to vote yet? Want to call your Elected Heroes yet? Want to get off your butt and run for office yet? No? Oh well, I think American Idol is on tonight anyway.
Jimmy Carter, you suck.
That is, American policy is stupid.
On nuclear generation of electricity.
What's especially stupid is that, of all the ways you can make electricity, with the possible exception of hydrodynamic or geothermal (which are hard to get going on the same scale as nuclear), nuclear energy is the MOST natural of all the ways we generate electricity!
Wind power, you say? I'm for it. Try getting a gigawatt in anything like the same footprint as a gigawatt nuclear facility. The wind pushes the blade which turns the mill, which makes power, which is conditioned and put on the grid.
Solar, you say? Leaving aside for the moment the argument that solar panels require more energy to produce than they will put out over the lifetime of the panel; the sun heats the cell, which makes electrons, which must be rectified and conditioned and then put on the grid.
Oil, coal, both filthy. Much better than they used to be, but compared to nuclear, filthy to make and filthy to use. Not to mention that a single truck can deliver the fuel to run a reactor for a few years, compared to trainloads of coal or constant-flowing pipelines of oil that get BURNED every DAY!
Natural gas, slightly less dirty than oil.
Nuclear power: we take a natural product straight out of the earth (some reactors can use raw ore), put it in a controlled environment, and it does the same thing it was doing underground. Yes, that is correct. Nuclear power generation is merely harvesting a NATURAL chemical reaction. The uranium, plutonium, etc., are turning into lead underground. We put them in a reactor and put them past critical mass, and they do it faster, making more heat. We take the heat to make power the same way you do with geothermal and hydrodynamic generation: spinning turbines. What is the waste product of nuclear electricity generation? Steam and heat. In france, there is one room in one city where they store highly radioactive waste. This waste has a half-life shorter than a human's half-life.
Hold on there.
Not tens or hundreds of thousands of years, single digits of decades half-life on the stuff they store until it is no longer dangerous.
That's France. In FRIKKIN FRANCE they are doing something better than we are!
In the US, we have over a hundred pools next to their reactors storing used uranium and a little plutonium, along with the stuff they keep in a single room in LeHavre.
What's the difference?
Jimmy Carter: worst. president. ever.
Some jerk stole some spent nuclear fuel in India and the world had a minor freak-out. Jimmuh had a major freak-out and said NO transporting nuclear fuel after it's used
okay, why can we transport it before it's used?
Because it's so deadly dangerous that workers have to use special protective equipment to handle the fuel rods that go into a reactor: gloves.
That's right, you can handle unused uranium fuel rods with gloves and not get dead, like you would handling spent rods. They get MORE radioactive when we use them. Crazy. You'd think if they got MORE radioactive, you could take them and stick them back in and use them some more! Right? I mean, RIGHT?
Right. In France, where 80+% of their power is nuclear, they recycle their spent fuel. So does UK, and all the other countries that are not stupid about it. 95% of the stuff in a used fuel rod from a nuclear reactor is useable fuel. That 95% is the stuff with half-lives so long we have to worry about people in a gozillion years getting into it and killing themselves. Yeah, when you spin that out, you get 5% of stuff with half-lives shorter than your own, and the rest is useful fuel.
Question: when is the last time CNN told you that half of the nuclear power generated in the USA is coming from old soviet nuclear bomb warheads? Never, you say? oh, really? Well, it is. We can move those puppies around enough to turn into useful fuel, but not the stuff that used to be useful fuel 6 years ago? Hmm. Makes sense to me.
*During the 'debates', (I can't believe he's the) candidate Obama said he's against Yucca Mountain as the place where we should store our nuclear fuel. He's against it because he's a lightweight. I'm against it because the spent fuel and old bombs should be turned into fuel, not long-term radioactive waste.
This is stupid, people. You want to talk about being green?
I thought you people WANTED to be recyclers! Why don't we recycle something we have heaping piles of lying all over the country?
*********
Safety. Nuclear is dangerous. Three Mile Island! Chernobyl!
Not. So. Fast.
Chernobyl was made soviet-style: zero safety precautions, shoddy maintenance, and poor training. It was literally an accident waiting to happen, and there is not a chance that a power plant of that design would be approved for construction in the USA. As far as I'm concerned, that ends the discussion right there. Go to wikipedia and look it up if you don't agree.
TMI was fine. The safety measures took over and guess how many people got so much as a hangnail from the accident. None. Nobody was killed, nobody was hurt. The safety measures designed into the facility worked as designed and prevented any significant radiation being released into the environment. The core that melted down is currently safely contained and is LESS of a hazard than one of those pools of useful fuel rods sitting, rotting, all over the country. There has NEVER been an accident in a modern reactor that killed the NIMBYs that didn't want it to be built.
So, for no good reason, your electric and oil and gas bills are through the roof, because the majority of the politicians YOU voted for (if you even bothered to vote) refuse to allow the recycling of a valuable natural resource. Why? because they are beholden to the environmentalist socialist watermelon groups and think they will lose their jobs. Bold leadership there. Are you motivated to vote yet? Want to call your Elected Heroes yet? Want to get off your butt and run for office yet? No? Oh well, I think American Idol is on tonight anyway.
Jimmy Carter, you suck.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Jimmy Carter Sucks.
In 1977 U.S. President Jimuh Carter banned the recycling of commercial nuclear reactor fuel. India had nipped some from a neighbor and made a Bomb with it, and he didn't want that to happen to US reactor fuel. So he made it against the law to recycle the stuff. By the law of unintended consequences, he put containment pools in a hundred or so places in the country, holding deadly radioactive waste under water.
Ok, fine. So what?
So nobody steals radioactive waste in the country that is (arguably) one of the most anal about storage and security of it. Come on, now.
In france, something like 80% of their energy comes from nuclear power plants. Do they have these deadly dangerous containment pools? Not so much. In france they
recycle it.
something like 95% of spent fuel rods are material that can be reprocessed and put right back into a nuclear reactor. The rest is mostly isotopes of lead, cesium and strontium. Cesium and strontium have half-lives of less than 40 years, each. They are reduced to mostly harmless in relatively short order. The uranium and plutonium are what needs to be locked away for thousands and thousands of years. You know, that same uranium and plutonium which is able to be reprocessed into useful reactor fuel? Yeah, that stuff. You end up with a choice: recycle it and protect the citizenry from a little bit of crazy dangerous stuff for a few hundred years, OR don't recycle and protect the citizenry for longer than we have had recorded human civilization on this planet. Hmm.
Does it make the choice any harder when I tell you that France stores all of their Cesium and Strontium waste in Le Havre. . . in a SINGLE FRIKKEN ROOM?
Barack Hussein Obama is against Yucca Mountain. So is Hillary Rodham Clinton. So am I. Because this is about the stupidest idea EVAR! Could you imagine what would happen if somebody in government proposed that we take all the used aluminum cans in the country and bury them underground in the middle of nowhere instead of recycling them? Do you think environmentalists would go for it?
Oh, you can hear it already, nuclear fuel is dangerous! Three Mile Island! Chernobyl! Mutated fish in the streams!
HOG
WASH
!
Anybody that says nuclear energy is dangerous is either a) stupid b) not paying attention c) too lazy to do 5 minutes of research online d) lieing or e) somebody with commercial interests in keeping the status quo. Allow me to make a controversial statement:
Nuclear energy is safe, environmentally friendly and nonpolluting. It is a natural process brought under control and NOT a threat to the people or environment of the U.S.A., and we should be doing more of it.
I could write a book about this topic, but it's already been done and the idiots and jerks in government don't seem to care, so I won't waste the effort. If your interest is piqued, please visit this website for more information.
Ok, fine. So what?
So nobody steals radioactive waste in the country that is (arguably) one of the most anal about storage and security of it. Come on, now.
In france, something like 80% of their energy comes from nuclear power plants. Do they have these deadly dangerous containment pools? Not so much. In france they
recycle it.
something like 95% of spent fuel rods are material that can be reprocessed and put right back into a nuclear reactor. The rest is mostly isotopes of lead, cesium and strontium. Cesium and strontium have half-lives of less than 40 years, each. They are reduced to mostly harmless in relatively short order. The uranium and plutonium are what needs to be locked away for thousands and thousands of years. You know, that same uranium and plutonium which is able to be reprocessed into useful reactor fuel? Yeah, that stuff. You end up with a choice: recycle it and protect the citizenry from a little bit of crazy dangerous stuff for a few hundred years, OR don't recycle and protect the citizenry for longer than we have had recorded human civilization on this planet. Hmm.
Does it make the choice any harder when I tell you that France stores all of their Cesium and Strontium waste in Le Havre. . . in a SINGLE FRIKKEN ROOM?
Barack Hussein Obama is against Yucca Mountain. So is Hillary Rodham Clinton. So am I. Because this is about the stupidest idea EVAR! Could you imagine what would happen if somebody in government proposed that we take all the used aluminum cans in the country and bury them underground in the middle of nowhere instead of recycling them? Do you think environmentalists would go for it?
Oh, you can hear it already, nuclear fuel is dangerous! Three Mile Island! Chernobyl! Mutated fish in the streams!
HOG
WASH
!
Anybody that says nuclear energy is dangerous is either a) stupid b) not paying attention c) too lazy to do 5 minutes of research online d) lieing or e) somebody with commercial interests in keeping the status quo. Allow me to make a controversial statement:
Nuclear energy is safe, environmentally friendly and nonpolluting. It is a natural process brought under control and NOT a threat to the people or environment of the U.S.A., and we should be doing more of it.
I could write a book about this topic, but it's already been done and the idiots and jerks in government don't seem to care, so I won't waste the effort. If your interest is piqued, please visit this website for more information.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
