Many media pundits will reflexively view the recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the California rule mandating that nonprofit groups disclose their top donors as a victory for conservatives such as Charles Koch. While the Koch-associated group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) served as the lead plaintiff to challenge the law, this 6-3 ruling by the justices should also be viewed as a loss for Vice President Harris.

It was Harris, the former California attorney general, who first interpreted the state's regulations on charities to mandate that nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations report all gifts greater than $5,000 via the IRS Schedule B donor list.

Ostensibly, Harris was simply guarding against nonprofit lawbreaking, self-dealing or conflicts of interest. But her rule was the equivalent of asking everyone to send her their checking account statements, just in case someone was laundering money. As a law enforcement officer, she had the right to subpoena IRS records, but hers appeared to be a fishing expedition in search of so-called dark money, the allegedly nefarious influence-machine of the right.

The Supreme Court's ruling shouldn't be associated with Harris just because she issued the original requirement on nonprofits. She also was the first to strictly enforce the law, and she persisted in defending it even after an initial court ruling against it. //

It's worth mentioning what Harris had to overlook in order to persist in defending her interpretation of California's charity law. She had to ignore a key precedent from the 1958 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Alabama's Jim Crow requirement that the NAACP disclose donor information. At the time, this was practically an invitation to lynching. Harris had to overlook the fact that the district court cited "threats, protests, boycotts, reprisals and harassment directed at those individuals publicly associated with AFP." She also had to minimize the fact that "inadvertent" disclosures of donor information already had occurred, and that information leaks often occur (see the recent disclosure of the tax returns of some of America's wealthiest businessmen).

It's hard to see Harris's interpretation of the California law as anything more than a partisan political play that was unnecessary to her role in law enforcement and potentially motivated by the Democratic hysteria about conservative dark money - even as the political left relies on complex organizations to funnel funds to its own causes. //

Let's stop judging an organization's public positions based on who their private supporters might be. That's as true for the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported the Koch position in the case, as it is for AFP. Both deserve to have their arguments judged on the merits, not based on the sources of their money.

As the climate crisis worsens, the discussion intensifies over what role nuclear power should play in fighting it.

BYLOIS PARSHLEY
PUBLISHED MAY 4, 2021

Seven years ago the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) proposed the Inga 3 – a 4.8GW hydropower project on the Congo River – with great fanfare. Third in a series of dams that would form the Grand Inga complex on the Congo river, the project was touted as a solution to southern Africa’s energy deficit woes and a way for the DRC to participate in regional economic development.

Seven years later, development of Inga 3 has yet to begin. The project continues to be stymied by conflicts. For example, earlier this year, one of the partners, a Spanish company, pulled out of the consortium. But DRC president Félix Tshisekedi continues to push to revive the plans.

According to South Africa’s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP 2019), the country plans to import at least 2.5GW of electric power from Inga 3 (or more than half of the original 4.8GW design), a commitment reiterated recently by South African president Cyril Ramaphosa. The largest remaining fractions of Inga 3’s electricity generation would be purchased by the mining industry in the DRC. Less than 10% of the electricity from Inga 3 is expected to supply the DRC’s residential electricity needs. Currently 90% of the population in the DRC lacks electricity access.

Does Inga 3 make sense? //

The hydropower potential at the Grand Inga site on the Congo River, the largest remaining untapped hydropower potential in the world, has drawn the interest and attention of development banks and regional governments for the past several decades. But there’s been dramatic change in the energy sector in the past five years. In particular, the cost of alternative energy sources like wind and solar has changed the game for cost-competitive and sustainable energy generation that can be rapidly scaled up.

There are more efficient ways to address severe energy deficits quickly and cost-efficiently. For example, wind projects take only one to three years to build and most solar photovoltaic projects take a year. Both incur lower costs than similar-sized hydropower projects, which take five to 10 years to build. The latest construction time estimate for the Inga 3 is eight years. //

Longer build times lead to greater costs due to interest on capital. And analysis of data from past large hydropower dams shows that these projects cost twice the amount they quoted before the start of the project.

We found that, even without considering the large environmental and social impacts, the dam is an unsound investment based on plain economics. //

We found that a mix of wind, solar photovoltaics, and some natural gas would be more cost-effective than Inga 3 to meet future demand.

We reached this conclusion after examining the impact of several uncertain factors that could change overall costs. These included: Inga 3 performance, Inga 3 cost overruns, wind and solar performance, and the demand for electricity in the future.

The only scenarios in which Inga 3 was more cost-effective were those that assumed significantly lower than average wind energy performance. //

Of course, economics should be only one of many factors to weigh when choosing energy technologies. Like many other mega hydropower projects, the Inga 3 has been fraught with potential severe social and environmental impacts. At least 35,000 people would be displaced by Inga 3 alone.

The potential ecosystem impacts include the decline of fisheries upstream of the dam, threats to freshwater diversity and mangroves in the Congo delta, and reduced carbon sequestration through reduced organic sediment transport downstream to the ocean. ///

What about the economics of the LCOE over the life of the investment? A hydro power plant should have a life of at least 50 years, double that of any present wind or solar power system. This seems like a very short sighted analysis, very much in line with the recent switch of the World Bank et.al. from infrastructure development goals to "sustainable development", which only serves to maintain the status quo of human development in favor of the environment.

Yesterday, the guys over at Powerline blog had this interesting little story on the practical realities as to why “renewable” energy sources like wind and solar power will NEVER generate the power needed to supply the vast electrical demands of the United States, notwithstanding all the proclamations and pledges made by moronic politicians chasing after “green votes”.

The bottom-line issue comes down to a simple calculation of the area of landmass needed to produce a specific measure of generated electricity when you employ different methods of generating that electricity.

When efficiency is measured as a function of landmass use, the form of electrical generation that is far and away the best method is nuclear power. The chart found in the Powerline story shows that when “power density” is measured as watts per square meter of land used, nuclear power produces 2000 watts, while solar power produces 10 watts of electricity per square meter of land used, and wind power produces 1 watt of electricity per square meter.

Part of the variable here is that nuclear power runs at a constant generating capacity 24/7/365, and besides nuclear fuel, the only natural resource needed is a supply of water. //

Once the math is done with regard to the relationship of the various forms of power which can be used to generate electricity, the next relatively simple mathematical calculation is to determine how much landmass will be required to generate enough electricity from wind and/or solar power to meet the electricity needs of the United States over a given period of time. That is where the problems begin.

Setting aside for the moment the question of capital costs and what that might mean for electricity rates to be paid by consumers, if the calculation is limited solely to a determination of how many square miles of wind farms would be needed to power the electrical needs of the United States such that the burning of fossil fuels to turn water into steam that drives steam turbine generators, the answer is a landmass the size of California — times 2. You take something akin to California, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, cover it from top-to-bottom and side-to-side with giant wind turbines, and the rest of the country can run their air conditioners, microwave ovens, and electric power-washers without introducing another molecule of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from putting a match to fossil fuel. //

To accomplish the goals staked out in these policy prescriptions means devoting massive amounts of a scarce natural resource — land — to the re-invention of electrical generation capacity in the United States. I consider land as a “scare natural resource,” because the last time I checked, there isn’t any more of it being created. We “consume” the land when we cover it with solar panels and can’t make any other use of it.

Right now, the major metropolitan communities on the coasts are not served by electrical transmission lines from Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Oklahoma. All of that infrastructure would need to be built, as well.

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is a geographic impossibility based on current technology. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power could likely be accomplished with currently available technology.

France has done it. France reduced its fossil fuel consumption for energy from 96% in 1966 to under 45% in 2018. In the same time period, it increased nuclear-generated energy to 49%, a program which began in the early 1970s as a result of the “1973 Oil Crisis” and the recognition by France that it produces no oil and has no oil reserves among its natural resources. //

bluestardad
3 months ago
Massive solar farms will wipe out large areas of vegetation, which converts CO2 into Oxygen and water vapor. Strike one, enviro-NAZIs. Solar panels primarily come from China because they are about the only country willing to strip mine for the raw materials to make them. Strip mining is a wasteful method and creates all kinds of ecological damage. Strike two. Solar panels only produce electricity during sunny days. Battery storage requires climate controlled facilities to house them and keep them at peak performance, and even then they have relatively short operating lifetimes. Plus battery manufacturing also requires mining for rare earth minerals (think more strip mining.) Strike three //

NickSJ
3 months ago
Notice that greens fanatically oppose the only two reliable non-CO2 producing sources of electricity - nuclear and hydro. //

coyotewise NickSJ
3 months ago
China would not get huge revenues for the rare earth material with either hydro or nuclear. Biden loves him some China, and the better they do the better he and Hunter do.

German storage system manufacturer Sonnen has published test results that indicate the longevity of its products after extended use. In laboratory tests, the lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cells, which are also used in the company's “solar battery,” reportedly withstood 28,000 charging cycles.

The lifespans of battery storage systems remain an issue for many potential buyers. Sonnen says that it has charged and discharged battery cells at a C rate of one and a depth of discharge of 100% over a period of eight years. This means that a full charge or discharge was completed within an hour. It noted that the test for the batteries was significantly more demanding than its use as a residential storage system.

Over the past few years, it has carried out tests in a laboratory operated by Sonnen in Wildpoldsried, Germany. According to the manufacturer, the iron phosphate battery cells still had 65% of their original capacity. As a result, the cells have not yet reached the end of their lifespans, because for this there must be a sudden drop in capacity, the manufacturer explained.

Renewable energy, carbon-capture technologies, efficiency measures, reforestation and other steps are important—but they won’t get us there

By Daniel B. Poneman on May 24, 2019

Sixty-five years ago, President Eisenhower took the first concrete steps toward implementing his “Atoms for Peace” initiative, presenting Soviet leaders with a detailed outline of the safety and nonproliferation rules that should guide the peaceful development of civilian nuclear energy.

Three more years of determined U.S.-led diplomacy culminated in the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which continues to be pivotal in maintaining, monitoring and enforcing global nonproliferation safeguards—so that, in Ike’s words, “this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind.” //

The threat of nuclear proliferation abroad should not lead us to abandon nuclear energy at home. Indeed, American nuclear leadership has always been critical to guiding the safe, responsible use of civilian nuclear energy around the world.

For example, a number of American companies are developing advanced generation-reactor technologies that offer a host of safety and nonproliferation advantages. These advanced designs would have “walk away” safety, meaning they do not need any backup power or external cooling systems in the event of an accident. And since many of the new reactor designs would rarely if ever need to be refueled, the risk of diversion of fuel from uranium-enrichment or plutonium-reprocessing plants to a bomb program would be greatly diminished.

The U.S. should lead the way in the development of these reactors so they can be deployed at home and abroad over the next decade. As a growing number of countries around the world turn to nuclear power as a source of carbon-free electricity, it is strongly in our interest that they do so with safe, American-made technology. Countries that adopt the new U.S. reactor designs will also be subject to U.S. nonproliferation requirements, which are second to none. //

The 98 reactors in our nuclear fleet are the workhorse of the clean-energy sector. They provide one fifth of our electricity. Unfortunately, over the past few years six reactors have been prematurely shut down, and another 12 are set to close in the next seven years.

The problem is that the rules governing wholesale electricity markets do not allow the unique advantages of nuclear power to be reflected in the wholesale price, effectively putting new and existing nuclear plants at a disadvantage. These rules were written decades ago to deliver some things we want (low prices and excess capacity to meet spikes in demand) but not other things we want (clean air, lower carbon emissions and grid reliability). //

Nuclear plants are not only emissions-free and carbon-free, they are by far the most reliable assets in our power generation mix, operating 93 percent of the time—even during extreme weather events when some fossil fuel plants may be forced to shut down or curtail their operations. Under current rules, electricity markets are not allowed to value these attributes, even though they are clearly valuable. //

Preserving existing reactors may not sound exciting, but it is a critical first step if we take the climate challenge seriously. Consider that for every reactor that prematurely shuts down, our carbon dioxide emissions rise by about 5.8 million metric tons per year. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Equivalencies Calculator, that equals the emissions from burning more than 648 million gallons of gasoline—the equivalent of filling up an NFL stadium with gasoline and setting it on fire. //

In the 1950s, Admiral Hyman Rickover’s redoubtable efforts to establish a nuclear navy led directly to a commercial nuclear power industry in the U.S., beginning with the Shippingport reactor in 1957. Today the Pentagon’s need for reliable power can help drive demand for nuclear energy and defray its costs.

Audacity is the go-to audio editor for a lot of people, and for good reason—it’s simple, free, and still reasonably powerful. But with the recent privacy controversy weakening confidence in the new owners, now’s a good time to look at the alternatives. Fortunately, there are a lot of great ones that have been competing with Audacity for years.

Another celebration of the founding of the United States of America has arrived and, as always, it is yet another reflection upon the history of this nation. This year, Independence Day comes amid heightened racial tensions, a raucous debate over a controversial election, and an increasingly noxious political discourse. //

Echoes of abolitionist Frederick Douglass’ speech asking “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” continue to reverberate more than 150 years later. While addressing an audience in 1852, he said:

The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine. //

So how do I, as a black American conservative, reconcile these realities?

I recognize that the pain and oppression that my ancestors suffered is an inexcusable part of America’s story. In addition, I do not deny that black Americans – descendants of slaves especially – have a unique and complex history, much of which still has an impact today.

However, I can also acknowledge that from this great evil came a people and culture that has stood strong against what was inflicted upon us. In many cases, we have thrived despite it all. We have a strong culture that has influenced the evolution of American society.

As black Americans, we are an embodiment of the sentiment expressed by Joseph after confronting his wicked brothers who sold him into slavery:

You intended to harm me, but God intended it all for good.

I love being black. I love my culture. I love being an American. To me, none of these things are mutually exclusive.

It is for this reason that I can celebrate the Fourth of July, despite the fact that it did not always apply to my ancestors. Like every other nation in antiquity, America has sins. But she has worked and fought vigorously to move closer to the ideals upon which she was founded.

20 ITEM CLOSET
$299.99 ($559.98) code flash

1. arch
   It's very common in build scripts to have to generate, for example, paths that describe a platform, a build environment, a yum repo path, etc. Usually, I'd use uname -p to get the processor type, but arch is faster to type and self-documenting. //

   nsupdate <<EOF update add arpaname $ipaddr 86400 IN PTR $(hostname -f).
   send
   EOF

This would be easy enough to use inside a loop for when I might have a bunch of new IoT devices, VMs, or a fleet of laptops to install and already have their hostnames/IPs in a simple CSV file or otherwise generated them.

Not too long ago, when the idea of solar and wind energy was still hotly debated, critics used to point out the limitations of these energy sources: the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow. But nowadays many countries’ electricity grids are strongly supplied by renewable energy.

The challenge in creating flexible, reliable and affordable energy supply systems with renewables lies in the very different circumstances across countries and regions. Planning and expanding renewable power must consider countries’ local resources and their existing and planned infrastructure. This becomes even more interesting for countries trying to grow their grids and expand their renewables at the same time – like many in sub-Saharan Africa.

One technology that has the flexibility to complement solar and wind power production is hydropower. It can be used as a constant source of electricity, but also compensate for fluctuations in other sources. But it does need to be properly planned and managed if it’s to be sustainable. //

Can increased electricity generation be harmonised with climate change objectives?

Our research shows that combining sustainably managed hydropower plants with new solar and wind power projects is a promising option for the West African region. It could minimise the use of fossil fuels and their negative climate change impacts as the region seeks to expand access to affordable electricity. //

In our paper, we use a new model to examine the synergies of sustainable hydropower generation with solar and wind power in West Africa. The model shows how to manage these sources in combination.

We show that the region can use hydropower, rather than natural gas plants, to ensure grid reliability while increasing solar and wind power. Natural gas is often touted as a bridging fuel in the transition to sustainable energy. But global emissions need to be around zero by mid-century according to the Paris Agreement. Building more gas infrastructure therefore risks missing climate goals. //

Our paper shows one way to start the renewable transition for West Africa is by optimising the use of local solar, wind and water resources while keeping an eye on sustainability criteria. For instance, our methodology ensures that hydropower lake levels and downstream river flows remain within acceptable boundaries. It also underlines the possibility of replacing future hydropower plants with solar and wind.

This will increase the overall ecological sustainability of renewable power generation.

Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was infuriated that anyone would raise questions about the election in his state. The election in Georgia, Raffensperger assured us was “safe, secure, honest.”

People questioned that at the time and now there are still concerns that Tucker Carlson raised last night on his show about Fulton County, Georgia. Carlson highlighted two of the major concerns: that ballot images showed votes were scanned twice and that seven audit tally sheets showed falsified totals. Now, one can try to make excuses for ballots being scanned twice, although as Tucker showed, there was video of it being done repeatedly. What’s hard to get around is the falsified tally sheets. As he explained they would show, for example, a distribution of votes with some going to Joe Biden, some to President Donald Trump, and some to Jo Jorgensen. But then it would be tallied as all for Biden. What’s the explanation for that? It doesn’t seem like there could be any innocent explanation for that. //

GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger
@GaSecofState
Fulton County’s continued failures have gone on long enough with no accountability. Rick Barron and Ralph Jones, Fulton’s registration chief, must be fired and removed from Fulton’s elections leadership immediately. Fulton’s voters and the people of Georgia deserve better.
11:18 AM · Jul 15, 2021

Sean Davis
@seanmdav
You’re the top election official in the state. This all happened on your watch and under your nose. I guess maybe your office was too busy leaking phone calls and falsely claiming everything was fine to do its actual job? Where’s your accountability? //

Nick Searcy, INSURRECTIONAL FILM & TELEVISION STAR
@yesnicksearcy
Delete yourself from office

Whither nuclear power? That question has become more important as energy policies evolve to emphasize emissions-free “green” energy and an increased electrification of the U.S. economy. Some environmentalists consider nuclear power to be crucial to reducing carbon emissions; others continue to vehemently oppose nuclear power and believe that our energy must come solely from renewable sources. Asked whether they favor or oppose nuclear power, the public is split.*

Meanwhile, the nuclear power industry itself is in a parlous state for a variety of reasons. These include: (i) decades of construction cost overruns and plant delays because of poor designs, lack of manufacturing expertise, and changing regulations; (ii) political squabbling over spent nuclear fuel disposal; (iii) energy policies, including renewable energy subsidies and mandates, that have distorted electric power markets and made it harder for nuclear plants to compete; and (iv) lower natural gas prices and more efficient gas-fired generators. In the past few years, threatened plant closures have led state policymakers to award subsidies to a number of existing plants, and more such subsidies are likely forthcoming.

Nevertheless, nuclear power provides valuable benefits. It is highly reliable and emissions-free. It provides generation diversity, which can reduce the adverse impacts of fuel price shocks. It does not require backup and storage, unlike wind and solar power generation. New designs for nuclear plants promise lower costs and improved safety. This paper thus concludes that saving nuclear power is crucial to this country’s energy future, especially if that future is based on increased electrification. //

Several policies are necessary to preserve this power source. They include:

• Eliminating subsidies for renewable energy at the state and federal level, including federal production tax credits, state renewable portfolio standards, and feed-in tariffs for renewable resources that are increasingly distorting wholesale electric markets.
• Linking subsidies for existing nuclear plants to wholesale market prices of electricity and combining them with performance incentives that require improved operating efficiency over time. However, before subsidies are granted to prevent a nuclear plant’s closure, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis should be performed to ensure that the grant is not a futile exercise or is so costly that building replacement generating capacity is a lower-cost alternative.
  .....

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0719-JL.pdf

Expanding the technology is the fastest way to slash greenhouse gas emissions and decarbonize the economy.

April 6, 2019

Beyond decarbonizing today’s electric grid, we must use clean electricity to replace fossil fuels in transportation, industry and heating. We must provide for the fast-growing energy needs of poorer countries and extend the grid to a billion people who now lack electricity. And still more electricity will be needed to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by midcentury.

Where will this gargantuan amount of carbon-free energy come from? The popular answer is renewables alone, but this is a fantasy. Wind and solar power are becoming cheaper, but they are not available around the clock, rain or shine, and batteries that could power entire cities for days or weeks show no sign of materializing any time soon. Today, renewables work only with fossil-fuel backup.

Germany, which went all-in for renewables, has seen little reduction in carbon emissions, and, according to our calculations, at Germany’s rate of adding clean energy relative to gross domestic product, it would take the world more than a century to decarbonize, even if the country wasn’t also retiring nuclear plants early. //

But we actually have proven models for rapid decarbonization with economic and energy growth: France and Sweden. They decarbonized their grids decades ago and now emit less than a tenth of the world average of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour. They remain among the world’s most pleasant places to live and enjoy much cheaper electricity than Germany to boot.

They did this with nuclear power. And they did it fast, taking advantage of nuclear power’s intense concentration of energy per pound of fuel. France replaced almost all of its fossil-fueled electricity with nuclear power nationwide in just 15 years; Sweden, in about 20 years. In fact, most of the fastest additions of clean electricity historically are countries rolling out nuclear power.

New nuclear power plants are hugely expensive to build in the United States today. This is why so few are being built. But they don’t need to be so costly. The key to recovering our lost ability to build affordable nuclear plants is standardization and repetition. The first product off any assembly line is expensive — it cost more than $150 million to develop the first iPhone — but costs plunge as they are built in quantity and production kinks are worked out.

Yet as a former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission put it, while France has two types of reactors and hundreds of types of cheese, in the United States it’s the other way around. In recent decades, the United States and some European countries have created ever more complicated reactors, with ever more safety features in response to public fears. New, one-of-a-kind designs, shifting regulations, supply-chain and construction snafus and a lost generation of experts (during the decades when new construction stopped) have driven costs to absurd heights. //

These economic problems are solvable. China and South Korea can build reactors at one-sixth the current cost in the United States. //

dozens of American start-ups are developing “fourth generation” reactors that can be mass-produced, potentially generating electricity at lower cost than fossil fuels. If American activists, politicians and regulators allow it, these reactors could be exported to the world in the 2030s and ’40s, slaking poorer countries’ growing thirst for energy while creating well-paying American jobs. //

Currently, as M.I.T.’s Richard Lester, a nuclear engineer, has written, a company proposing a new reactor design faces “the prospect of having to spend a billion dollars or more on an open-​ended, all‑or‑nothing licensing process without any certainty of outcomes.” We need government on the side of this clean-energy transformation, with supportive regulation, streamlined approval, investment in research and incentives that tilt producers and consumers away from carbon.

All this, however, depends on overcoming an irrational dread among the public and many activists. The reality is that nuclear power is the safest form of energy humanity has ever used. Mining accidents, hydroelectric dam failures, natural gas explosions and oil train crashes all kill people, sometimes in large numbers, and smoke from coal-burning kills them in enormous numbers, more than half a million per year.

By contrast, in 60 years of nuclear power, only three accidents have raised public alarm: Three Mile Island in 1979, which killed no one; Fukushima in 2011, which killed no one (many deaths resulted from the tsunami and some from a panicked evacuation near the plant); and Chernobyl in 1986, the result of extraordinary Soviet bungling, which killed 31 in the accident and perhaps several thousand from cancer, around the same number killed by coal emissions every day. (Even if we accepted recent claims that Soviet and international authorities covered up tens of thousands of Chernobyl deaths, the death toll from 60 years of nuclear power would still equal about one month of coal-related deaths.) //

Nuclear waste is compact — America’s total from 60 years would fit in a Walmart — and is safely stored in concrete casks and pools, becoming less radioactive over time. After we have solved the more pressing challenge of climate change, we can either burn the waste as fuel in new types of reactors or bury it deep underground. It’s a far easier environmental challenge than the world’s enormous coal waste, routinely dumped near poor communities and often laden with toxic arsenic, mercury and lead that can last forever.

If Joe Biden were trying to injure our energy position in relation to the rest of the world, in particular Russia, he couldn’t have done too much more to be destructive than what he’s already done. //

Townhall.com
@townhallcom
Jen Psaki attributes a 40% increase in gas prices to seasonal fluctuations: //

But Joe Biden has no sense. His solution? Ask OPEC to pump more oil, so the prices don’t go up more. So, he’ll ask them to pump more while he’s cutting our own production ability. As the Wall Street Journal phrased it, “As cognitive dissonance goes, this is a classic.”

We truly have gone back to the Seventies, with a Democrat trying to make us dependent once again, after President Donald Trump had built our energy independence. //

Senator Ted Cruz
@SenTedCruz
Joe Biden’s energy agenda helps Russia and Iran, not America. //

Lauren Boebert
@laurenboebert
Biden wants OPEC to produce more oil while his regime tries to shut down U.S. oil and natural gas production.

If Joe actually cared about good jobs and lowering gas prices, he’d support American energy dominance! //

Brian Sullivan
@SullyCNBC
Lost in the OPEC story is that the market is scared 400,000 new barrels per day won't be coming online.

3 years ago US producers were pumping 2 million more barrels per day than right now.

OPEC back in drivers seat.

Leave A Legacy is Colorado’s own memory station. Bring your slides, old prints, Super 8 movies, VHS, audio cassettes, even your 4H ribbons to either our Denver or Fort Collins, Colorado locations. We’ll find the best way to preserve your precious moments, get them out of those dusty shoeboxes… and make them easy and fun to share.

Here are a couple things you need to know about us:

We're a local and family owned business
Our high-tech lab is located in Fort Collins, Colorado
We have been serving families since 2006
Our work quality is second to none all while being competitively priced.
We don't believe in a phone tree! We have humans answer the phone to handle your project.

Tips +
Leave A Legacy
Helping You Enjoy Your Memories Again
We'll take your memories and digitize them to the media of your choosing and organize them for you to enjoy for years to come.
Ok, So Why Leave A Legacy?
We're The Leading VHS To DVD Transfer Company

Leave A Legacy is Colorado’s own memory station. Bring your slides, old prints, Super 8 movies, VHS, audio cassettes, even your 4H ribbons to either our Denver or Fort Collins, Colorado locations. We’ll find the best way to preserve your precious moments, get them out of those dusty shoeboxes… and make them easy and fun to share.

Here are a couple things you need to know about us:

We're a local and family owned business
Our high-tech lab is located in Fort Collins, Colorado
We have been serving families since 2006
Our work quality is second to none all while being competitively priced.
We don't believe in a phone tree! We have humans answer the phone to handle your project. //

FULL SERVICE FILM TRANSFER
For your old 8mm, Super 8mm and 16mm to digital files.

DECLUTTER YOUR OLD VIDEO SHELVING
Convert your old VHS, Betacam, Betamax and other cassets into digital files and declutter your dusty shelves.

BRING PHOTOGRAPHS TO LIFE!
Don't let your negatives, slides and old photos sit in dusty boxes. Get them digitized today!

Audio transfer

The SureCall Fusion4Home booster kit improves 2G/3G/4G/LTE voice and data across all major US and Canadian carriers. The Fusion4Home is designed for homes, condominiums and apartments up to 1,500 sq ft and is configurable for a range of indoor environments.

The Fusion4Home is approved by the FCC and Industry Canada.

If you're ever in doubt about a clearance, ask ATC for clarification. Until you're cleared to a lower altitude, or cleared on an instrument approach, you cannot leave the last crossing restriction of a STAR following a descend via clearance.

Zimbabwe is one of the African countries that hopes renewable energy technologies will help to address their energy problems. About 42% of Zimbabwe’s households are connected to the electricity grid.

The country has huge and diverse renewable energy potential. Its sustainable energy portfolio could include solar, hydro, biomass and, to a limited extent, wind and geothermal. //

For policy makers, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and some researchers, it’s a given that renewable energy technologies are the answer. They could meet Zimbabwe’s growing energy demand and achieve universal access sustainably. At face value this is appealing – but the devil is in the details.

My research looked into how renewable energy technologies are understood and how they could alleviate energy poverty in Zimbabwe.

I found that they’re only one piece of the puzzle and other pieces are habitually missing. No matter how well designed and efficient technologies are, their effectiveness is linked to the country’s political economy.

Socio-economic and political factors keep conventional energy out of reach of the poor. My study shows that they can do the same with renewable energy. These factors may even worsen inequality. Adding renewable energy technologies into the existing energy sector structures is like pouring new wine into old wine skins. //

The politics of energy and technological dependency: China has become a source of finance for large-scale energy projects in Zimbabwe. This is true for both coal-based and renewable energy generation.

What’s seldom acknowledged is the skewed nature of this relationship. China has global dominance in renewable energy technologies. For example, the Chinese solar PV cell and module makers quickly dominated global sales. And the country’s wind turbine producers are poised for significant exports. //

Energy as a tool of accumulation: For China, energy poverty in Zimbabwe is an opportunity for its economic growth. The unequal distribution of economic power keeps Zimbabwe energy poor. Accumulation is happening at one pole and energy poverty at another. //

Renewable energy technologies would work if, somehow, they did more for the poor than for the powerful. But in reality, the opposite is true.

First, the private partners (independent power producers) aren’t ordinary citizens, but the economically powerful and politically connected.

Second, the flawed nature of the tendering system cannot be overstated. It’s normally associated with corruption and political interference.

What’s more, this elite group tends to benefit from the state’s intervention.

These selected writings are provided here specifically to support the teaching materials provided elsewhere and to meet the needs of a University of Rochester course, "Lincoln, Douglass and Black Freedom." A companion page is available on the Lincoln and his Circle website examining the issues below using speeches and writings of Abraham Lincoln.

Senate Democrats intend to erode as many barriers around the reconciliation process as possible.

Forward:

A book of this type must often get into discussions of scientific details. Every effort has been made to keep them as readable as possible for the layperson. The more technical details have been put into Appendixes at the end of the book. These can be ignored by readers with less interest in details. For readers with more interest in these, references are given which can be used as starting points for further reading. Personal inquiries about further information or references are always welcome.

Each chapter is broken up into sections. If a reader is not interested in the subject of a particular section or finds it to be too technical, it can usually be skipped over without loss of continuity.

DC Reade
traveling
April 7, 2019
Times Pick
I'm noticing the usual array of objections to nuclear power: 1) that high level waste storage is impractical; 2) that reactors are easy terrorist targets; 3) that radiation is such a horrific form of pollution that only zero tolerance will suffice; 4) that the track record of Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Miles Island demonstrates that the technology is inherently unsafe.

If people were to investigate these objections instead of regarding them as truisms, they'd find that 1) high-level nuclear waste can be reprocessed using fast-neutron reactor technology and reused to consume nearly all of it; 2) nuclear reactors are not exactly soft targets for terrorist groups, particularly in terms of making bomb-grade fissile material available to them; 3) some level of radiation is inescapable simply in the course of residing on the planet, and people incur much more of an additional radiation load as airline passengers than people do by living in proximity to a nuclear power plant; and 4) Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island are more examples of failure to heed ordinary good sense precautions than they are indications of an inherently dangerous technology.

Furthermore, the best and cleanest nuclear reactor designs- Gen III and Gen IV- are only now coming online. There are designs that don't use water for cooling. There are designs that don't even require uranium.

It's imperative to not fall into the trap of obsessing over every problem while objecting to every solution.

318 RecommendShareFlag
10 REPLIES
Lynn commented April 6, 2019
L
Lynn
New York
April 6, 2019
@DC Reade
"high-level nuclear waste can be reprocessed using fast-neutron reactor technology and reused to consume nearly all of it"
So is anyone doing that first with all the waste that's already lying around with no plan to go?

18 RecommendShareFlag
Ian Rasmussen commented April 6, 2019
I
Ian Rasmussen
Chicago
April 6, 2019
@Lynn As my understanding goes, the way to reprocess as @CD Reade mentions is called a Breeder Reactor, and yes, they are used around the world. That's what the authors are talking about when they say "we can either burn the waste as fuel in new types of reactors or bury it underground." For whatever reason we don't use them in America, I'm not sure why, probably politics. Europe and I believe Japan have used them for a while, and China just opened one in the last decade as they push forward on nuclear power. Could be some nuclear arms treaty fine print or something that prevents us in the US, or just the general fear of the word nuclear.

11 RecommendShareFlag
DC Reade commented April 6, 2019
D
DC Reade
traveling
April 6, 2019
@Ian Rasmussen

In the US, the obstacles are based in politics and litigation. I've gotten to view most of that resistance as based in irrational fear- with the (dys)functional result being that high-level nuclear waste products continue to be stored on-site in cooling ponds long after they've cooled enough to be moved, which is a much more potentially hazardous than transporting the material for reprocessing in a breeder reactor, or moving it to a remote storage site that's nowhere near any bodies of water and relatively secure from being mobilized by the wind and weather.

11 RecommendShareFlag
617to416 commented April 7, 2019
617to416
617to416
Ontario Via Massachusetts
April 7, 2019
@DC Reade

"Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island are more examples of failure to heed ordinary good sense precautions than they are indications of an inherently dangerous technology. "

And are we confident that "failures to heed ordinary good sense" are a thing of the past and that we've now entered an era where humans will be free from error, always rational, and never motivated by passion, greed, or anger?

The failure to heed ordinary good sense is a significant risk that any truly rational person can't ignore!

8 RecommendShareFlag
K D commented April 7, 2019
K
K D
Pa
April 7, 2019
@DC Reade
The incident at Three Mile was handled exactly the way it was suppose to be handled. They followed procedures and no radiation escaped.

11 RecommendShareFlag
Cactus commented April 7, 2019
C
Cactus
RI
April 7, 2019
@DC Reade
You've said everything better than I could. I understand many anti-nuclearists think they are protecting life on our planet. If only they would educate themselves----we are so mis-informed. The author's book is a good start as is Gretchen Craven's Power to Save the World.

8 RecommendShareFlag
Anne commented April 7, 2019
A
Anne
Chicago
April 7, 2019
In a few years homes can fully power themselves (https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/fuel-cells/solar-panel-prototype-splits-water-to-produce-hydrogen).
That leaves a much smaller production need for industry and vehicles which can be largely covered with other renewables. The US has the open space and latitude for it.

3 RecommendShareFlag
Peter Melzer commented April 7, 2019
P
Peter Melzer
C'ville, VA
April 7, 2019
@Ian Rasmussen,
Russia is the only country that claims to have developed functional commercial-scale fast breeder reactors. France's Superphenix produced power for a few weeks before the project was abandoned because of technical difficulties. Japan's Monju project never went on grid. Construction of the Clinch River reactor in the US was abandoned in its early infancy.

5 RecommendShareFlag
Varsityvic commented April 7, 2019
V
Varsityvic
NJ
April 7, 2019
@Ian Rasmussen I worked as a nuclear engineer on the breeder reactor. Government funded, cancelled a few years after TMI accident for both political and economic reasons. They are much more complex than normal reactors. I’m surprised no mention of geothermal in article or comments by others.

5 RecommendShareFlag
Dirk commented April 7, 2019
D
Dirk
Camden, Maine
April 7, 2019
@K D It may have been handled exactly the way "it should be" but it never should have happened in the first place. What it proves is that nuclear accidents (and blunders) WILL happen. Full Stop.
Therefore we need to expect more of them if we build more of them. You didn't mention the costs of 3-Mile Island. From what I can gather it cost $973M (or almost a billion dollars) to clean up -- which doesn't include the cost of building the reactor. It was new at the time it failed so all the imbedded costs in its construction and startup were lost. These babies are not cheap and some will fail. 3-Mile Island came very close to a complete meltdown. Fukishima is not done melting yet -- it's still a major disaster in progres. But that said, it's predicted to cost Japan over $200Billion (American dollars) over time. Five of those and you have a Trillion. This is playing with fire. Solar is not.

3 RecommendShareFlag
paul commented April 7, 2019
P
paul
White Plains, NY
April 7, 2019
Times Pick
Finally, a voice of reason in an age of anti-nuclear rhetoric. Nuclear power is efficient, economical and safe, despite the fear mongering of people who simply ignore the science and the facts. Look at New York state, where the witless Governor Andrew Cuomo has frightened the residents of the Hudson Valley into the imminent shut down of the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Where will the replacement power come from? How much will it cost? No amount of wind or solar power can generate what Indian Point does, but Cuomo simply ignores the economic realities. Sheer stupidity, or more likely the outright political manipulation of the people.

1 Reply107 RecommendShareFlag
rosa commented April 7, 2019
R
rosa
ca
April 7, 2019
Times Pick
I'm 70.
I was born about the time that nuke-poer and nuke-weapons came on the scene.
Nuke power, they said, was going to be cheap!Evry one would use it for pennies a day!

And they never said anything about nuke waste.
They didn't have to.
There was a terrific site in Washington. All they had to do was scrape a deep trench in the soil, throw in the waste, scrape a cover over it, and, VIOLA! No more problem!

When I left Washington, they had 'discovered' that, ooops, the trenches were leaking. Into the Columbia. Heading downstream. So, don't eat the fish.

You'll forgive me, young men, if I don't believe anyone when they say they have a solution to.... pretty much anything, but especially, nuclear waste.

We still have no solution to Chernobyl.
We have no solution to Fukushima Diachi.
Yucca Mountain? It's one of the most earthquake states, Nevada, that there is.
And what about that nuclear power plant that was built on the California coast?

Sorry.
Never.
There is no industry in the world that is run by a more incompetent bunch, ever.
I am 70.
So are nukes.

Seriously, NYTimes?
Is this the next subject that shall be "normalized"?

Solar.
Wind.
Hydro.
Tidal.
They are all cheaper - and safer.
No nukes - for any reason - until the problem with "WASTE" is solved.

Start with the state of Washington.

88 RecommendShareFlag
3 REPLIES
spike commented April 7, 2019
spike
spike
NYC
April 7, 2019
@rosa Nukes always seem like a great idea on paper, but in the end they always end up much more expensive then alternatives. Any mistake is very expensive to fix, the waste problem is endless. The need to place them next to water and near cities means any problem becomes catastrophic. The huge capital cost means engineers will always be pushed to cut corners so that Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are sited over faults. Hindsight always shows ways that disasters could have been avoided- Fukushima would have survived if the fuel tanks for the back up pumps have been underground so that they were not swept away by the tsunami. But all systems fail at some point. After the Tohoku earthquakes probably the safest place to put a nuke plant is Fukushima- it wouldn't see another earthquake a large for a very long time. Instead Japan maintains nuke plants at other more vulnerable locations. Probably the safest place to dump nuclear waste would be in the deep oceans, where it would be slowly diluted by the vast ocean. Instead it will be placed on land where it will be vulnerable to terrorists, earthquakes, leak into water supplies and always be a danger.

3eeeeeeeddddededeeeee

Blue Moon
Old Pueblo
April 7, 2019
Times Pick
Three Mile Island had a seriously adverse effect on the American psyche. After that, no new nuclear plants were licensed for startup until 2012 (33 years later). And many plants that were being planned at the time wound up delayed or canceled.

China is on track for 100 nuclear generating stations in the near future (as well as robust investment in wind and solar). If they can do it, why can't we? And if we still decide not to do it, that decision isn't going to stop the Chinese.

There is no rational reason for America not to pursue nuclear power in earnest again. We fell off the wagon. It's high time to get back on.

Rod Adams
Rod Adams
Trinity, FL
April 7, 2019
@b fagan Your link points to a graph of installed and projected CAPACITY, not generation.

Because nuclear plants run at 100% of their capacity for major portions of each year, they produce more electricity per unit of capacity than variable sources like wind.

Though nuclear CAPACITY was just 2% in 2016, nuclear electricity generation in 2018 was 294.4 billion kWh. That's 4.2% of the total generation and an 18% increase over 2017.

In 2018, China put 8 new nuclear plants into operation; most of them only generated power for a small portion of the year. Expect another large incremental growth in nuclear electricity production for 2019.

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-01/24/c_137771695.htm

One more thing - China is also building one of the world's largest nuclear powered icebreakers. I'm pretty sure that wind powered icebreaking isn't even a thing.

Blue Moon
Old Pueblo
April 7, 2019
@seattle expat
Natural gas burns cleaner than coal but still pumps CO2 into the atmosphere. Fracking represents an extreme environmental hazard (e.g., water table contamination, earthquakes). Realistically, wind and solar will take many decades to implement effectively for a large portion of the U.S. population, requiring a "transcontinental railroad" infrastructure effort to transmit the power from solar and wind farms to where it is needed. Battery storage capacity will take many more decades to properly develop for commercial applications. We can get nuclear plants up and running within 20 years, in abundance. Natural gas to nuclear to renewables (wind, solar) is the best progression and the way we need to go. Threats from nuclear waste disposal and accidents pale in comparison to the existential threats of global warming and climate change. China certainly has its share of problems, but safely embracing nuclear power generation is not one of them. Nuclear power will provide the path to powering our electric cars of the near future. It is foolish to shun it.