I don’t often agree with Obama, but it does happen. And right now, I agree with something he’s done. On Sunday, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that, in response to the nuclear crisis in Japan, the US would start giving “population” much more weight when deciding where to build nuclear power plants. In other words, they’re going to start putting these plants away from large population centers. It’s about time.
I am not opposed to nuclear energy. I do not fall for leftist arguments, which are based on emotion rather than science and which mistake possibility for probability and demand perfection when no such thing is possible. But I also don’t fall for industry propaganda, which tries to pretend that a nuclear plant is no more dangerous than an old tractor sitting in some field.
The truth is that nuclear power plants are fairly safe, but they are not entirely safe. Indeed, there have been 33 serious accidents at nuclear plants since 1952 (with another 39 military accidents) and there are any number of things that can go wrong. And more importantly, when these accidents do happen, they have the potential to do serious, serious harm. Not only can they kill large amounts of people and make many more significantly ill, but they can make large chunks of land uninhabitable. Chernobyl, for example, resulted in an 1,100 square mile exclusion zone.
Thus, when thinking about building a nuclear plant, the first question we should be asking is: where can we put it that it doesn’t cause a major catastrophe if something goes wrong? This is simple common sense. When you store a can of gasoline, you don’t store it under your bed or next to your fireplace. You put it somewhere safe. You don’t build a house underneath a hanging boulder and you don’t put a school next to a toxic dump. It’s just common sense to account for potential dangers when building something.
Yet, for whatever reason (read: heavy lobbying), we have never thought about this when building nuclear plants. Indian Point power plant, for example, is only 40 miles from New York City, and 21 million people live within 50 miles of the plant. Imagine the cost if something went wrong! Not only could you be dealing with millions of sick people, but even if they all got out, you still could be looking at abandoning New York City in its entirety! And I’m not talking about evacuating until the danger passes, I’m talking about abandoning the city. What kind of criminally negligent fool thought this was a good place to put that plant?
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t build plants. To the extent these plants make economic sense, without subsidies, I’m all for them. But that doesn’t mean we have to be stupid about where we place them. Here’s why.
Have you ever wondered how cities, states and countries are able to sell each other electricity? It’s because the transmission of electricity is highly efficient -- even given our outdated and poorly constructed electric infrastructure. According to electrical industry groups, the power loss resulting from transporting electricity 1,000 miles is only 8.71%. To transport electricity 2,000 miles results in a loss of around 17%. (Apparently, 2-3% is normal even for local transport.)
So how far is 1,000 miles? Well, St. Louis to Washington, D.C. is only 878 miles. New York City to Miami is only 1090 miles. Even New York City to Los Angeles is only 2,462. That means you can put reactors almost anywhere in the country and service most of the country with less than 10% loss in energy.
So why haven’t we done this? Well, it would increase the costs of electricity! True, but doesn’t it make more sense to pay 10% more for electricity than it does to run the risk that some disaster could eliminate a major metropolitan center?
Building any of these plants in or near a large population center is shortsightedness at its worst. Put them in the middle of deserts or on the far reaches of the coast. Don’t be stupid.
Thus, I have to congratulate President Obama for making the right decision here. I’m glad someone finally decided to use a little common sense.
[+] Read More...
[-] Collapse Post...
By Tennessee Jed
The AP has put out their Top 10 news stories of 2011. As usual, they’ve politicized the list and they aren’t good at separating the pointless from the significant. Here’s their list followed by a sneak peek at the top stories of 2012.
This article is also posted at Big Hollywood (LINK).
Presidents of the United States are generally considered to represent all of the people of the United States. I’ve never doubted the loyalty of any of them in this regard. . . until now. Obama has repeatedly shown that he only represents his friends, as if he were some Banana Republic dictator. Not only does he view the Treasury as a prize to be plundered by his allies, not only have he and his wife become to vacations what Imelda Marcos became to shoes, but now he’s shown a vindictive streak that stretches beyond disloyalty.
I don’t often agree with Obama, but it does happen. And right now, I agree with something he’s done. On Sunday, Obama’s Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that, in response to the nuclear crisis in Japan, the US would start giving “population” much more weight when deciding where to build nuclear power plants. In other words, they’re going to start putting these plants away from large population centers. It’s about time.
In modern parlance, the word “hero” is meaningless. Whiny idiots use that word to describe everything from sticking to their diets to overcoming minor hurdles to not killing themselves when faced with the slightest moment of self-pity. But there are real heroes in the world, and when we find them, we should take a moment to recognize them. We see this spirit in the Fukushima Fifty.
The Fukushima Fifty face the same thing. No one knows yet what will happen to them. We don’t know if the radiation will kill them or make them ill or perhaps do nothing. But whatever ultimately happens to them, they have taken a stand. They have walked into this danger, knowing there is a high probability they would die, and they did it for people they don’t even know. That’s heroism at its finest. And make no mistake, they know the risk. Indeed, several have told their families they expect to die.
The Democrats like to call themselves the party of science. Yeah, right. Anyone remember Climategate? Do you remember how the global warmists were caught manipulating data time and again to support their political views? Perhaps you remember Obama confirming his support for their data even after they were caught? Well, now he's been caught lying about the scientific support for his moratorium on new drilling in the Gulf. So much for science.
Some are suggesting that the BP spill in the Gulf could end up being Obama’s Katrina. That’s possible, but I doubt it. My reasoning has to do with the differences between right and left, not with how Obama responds to the disaster. Here’s why. . .
The explosion of the Deepwater Horizon presents us with a true teachable moment. But the lesson isn’t that offshore drilling is bad or dangerous or wrong, or that oil companies are evil. No. The oil companies do bare the brunt of the blame and should be made to pay for all of the damage they have caused. But the real lesson here is that it’s time to reform our government because it keeps failing to do the few tasks it should be doing.
There are two prices to be paid in the event of natural disasters. One is the human toll, the other the financial losses. US News and World Report recently did an interesting article on how the two types of losses don't necessarily work in parallel.