No Nuclear Power For The US But OK for Iran

Warner Todd Huston has an excellent post up at Stop the ACLU in which he discusses Obama’s statements that it is OK for Iran to have nuclear energy in order to power its country. This is the same Bozo who opposes nuclear power to provide energy in this country. B. Hussein Obama would rather waste money pursuing unproven green technology than use nuclear energy here. With the Iranians, who will develop nuclear weapons in their “peaceful” program, it is OK.

In Prague last month, Obama said that he saw no reason why his administration wouldn’t “support Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections.” And today in London, Obama reiterated that support by agreeing that Iran’s announced intentions for nuclear power were “legitimate aspirations.”

Not only that, but just last month Obama approved a nuclear power deal with the United Arab Emirates, as well. So, it’s nuclear power for everyone but the U.S.

This is an excellent point. Why is it OK for other countries to have nuclear power plants but not OK for us? Why is Obama keeping his own country from having nuclear energy?

Another interesting story at Stop the ACLU deals with Obama’s Muslim roots. The post points out that it was taboo to mention Islam and Obama together and the use of his middle name was forbidden with supporters calling those who did racists in the Pavlovian response to which we have become accustomed.

Now it would appear that Obama is comfortable with his Muslim roots and embraces them. I guess he was not too comfortable with them when he thought they could lose him an election but now that he is in, it is all good.

That just means he was not honest with people (though many of us had the sense to see that).

So King Hussein of the US is now comfy with his Muslim roots. Maybe that is why he is comfortable with Muslim countries having nuclear reactors. They would not hurt a Muslim brother, would they?

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

42 Responses to “No Nuclear Power For The US But OK for Iran”

  1. Randy says:

    Except that you and Warner Todd Houston left out the part where Obama doesn’t oppose nuclear energy development in the United States. In fact, there is money in the stimulus bill, a lot of it, for development of clean nuclear power.

    • Darrel says:

      Article neutered with a two sentence smack down. So concise. Nice.

      BIGD: “Obama would rather waste money pursuing unproven green technology…”>>

      DAR
      Gee, how far back do wind mills go anyway? Quite a ways back.

      Curious that an “unproven green technology” like wind now employs *more* people than coal.

      D.
      ——————–
      Wind Now Employs More People Than Coal

      Here’s a talking point in the green jobs debate: The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States.

      Wind industry jobs jumped to 85,000 in 2008, a 70% increase from the previous year, according to a report released Tuesday from the American Wind Energy Association. In contrast, the coal industry employs about 81,000 workers. (Those figures are from a 2007 U.S. Department of Energy report but coal employment has remained steady in recent years though it’s down by nearly 50% since 1986.) Wind industry employment includes 13,000 manufacturing jobs concentrated in regions of the country hard hit by the deindustrialization of the past two decades.

      The big spike in wind jobs was a result of a record-setting 50% increase in installed wind capacity, with 8,358 megawatts coming online in 2008 (enough to power some 2 million homes). That’s a third of the nation’s total 25,170 megawatts of wind power generation. Wind farms generating more than 4,000 megawatts of electricity were completed in the last three months of 2008 alone.”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/wind-now-employs-more-peo_n_162277.html

  2. Blake says:

    Randy, Darrel-
    This is from MSNBC
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/06/1249418.aspx

    McCain has said Obama has said “no” to nuclear energy. But as the Boston Globe points out, “Obama has described nuclear power as ‘not optimal’ and labeled himself ‘not a nuclear energy proponent.’ But he has said he would not rule out more nuclear power ‘only so far as it is clean and safe.'”

    Obama labeled himself as not a proponent of nuclear power but would not rule it out.

    From Organizing for America (an Obama supporting site)
    http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower

    Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.

    As for there being money in the stimulus for nuclear energy, Obama never read it so it is unlikely he knew it was there. It is not like he added it.

    • Darrel says:

      Obama is for nuclear power “only so far as it is clean and safe.”

      Well that’s just ridiculous. Who wants their nuclear power to be “clean” and “safe” too?

      D.

      • Blake says:

        I believe Hussein lies- I think it is second nature to him.

        • Darrel says:

          What matters is what you can show, not what you can bring yourself to believe. You have never demonstrated an example of Obama lying. Not once. Feel free to keep trying.

          D.
          ——————
          Lie:

          a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

          • Big Dog says:

            A lie is an intent to deceive. If one cannot show intent then one cannot say it was a lie. This is a general statement and could be made about nearly any political claim. One could claim that the person meant it at the time and was not trying to deceive. Bush never tried to deceive anyone on WMD but the rally cry was Bush lied, people died.

            Show the intent.

            Now you can use this nuance to say Obama has not been proven a liar because of intent but he sure told some whoppers and when caught said he was misinformed.

            Newsbusters

            • Darrel says:

              “he [Obama] sure told some whoppers”

              If you would like to defend any of those examples and see how they hold up to a little scrutiny you can always try them and see.

              Don’t get your hopes up.

              D.

            • Big Dog says:

              Yes, some more whoppers:

              And what you are saying is that you are OK with the lies, it just depends on the degree. You excuse these with ridicule but they are lies nonetheless.

            • Darrel says:

              “…but they are lies nonetheless.”

              DAR
              Try demonstrating one. Try defending one. Do you know how to make a case for something? Why don’t you try?

              D.

            • Blake says:

              Hey “DAR”- try reading what we write. We provide examples, but it is true that you can’t make someone see the truth- you are a prime example.

            • Blake says:

              I have repeatedly given examples of Hussein lying, but you choose to ignore them. Even Helen Keller could see them, so you are being a willful shill for Hussein.

        • Blake says:

          Ok- just yesterday he admitted his muslim roots- a part of him he denied vociferously during the campaign. He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on 95% of the people, that’s a lie.
          The truth is that you wouldn’t recognize a lie from him, because you are too busy prostrating yourself before him.
          When are you going to sacrifice a goat to him?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Ok- just yesterday he admitted his muslim roots-”

          DAR
          No, you’re lying again. I am not going to do your work for you. Make your case for this claim, and I will push it over.

          With a feather.

          The problem with interacting with dim bulbs like you is after a while people actually start to feel sorry for you and it makes me look bad. We’re almost to that point. Try to do better.

          D.

  3. Blake says:

    And as for wind employing more people than coal, that is doubtful, although Barama will tax the snot out of coal, so they will have to downsize from necessity.
    Wind turbines kill, with just the turbines that are now existing, 40,000 migratory birds. Now Darrel, you have your goats, but I have re nabbed wild birds for ten years now, and I know how destructive these can be, because the migratory pathways are also where the wind blows.
    There is never any benefit without a downside. Ever.

    • Darrel says:

      I referenced standard sources which cited the specific numbers on wind power/coal employment. Claiming it “is doubtful” is not a rebuttal.

      Regarding “turbines kill,” observe:

      ***
      Common Eco-Myth: Wind Turbines Kill Birds

      “It’s a given that anytime we post a story on wind power someone is going to comment that “turbines kill birds,” suggesting that wind power may therefore be unacceptable. Compared to what? Hitting birds with automobiles (along with turtles, groundhogs, and deer)? Birds caught by feral cats? Birds colliding with buildings or phone towers? Quite possibly, a higher mortality will be attached to the transmission wires needed to get the wind power to market. Why, then, do many associate bird mortality only with wind turbines? We hope to get to the bottom of this “death by turbine” myth hole, and point to the factors that can actually be managed though public involvement.

      [big snip… to last paragraph]

      In the United States, cars and trucks wipe out millions of birds each year, while 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. According to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, “Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States,” these non-wind mortalities compare with 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. That’s a long way from the sum mortality caused by the other sources.”

      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php

      DAR
      Best to read the whole article. Antique windmills are most of the problem (to the degree it is a problem). We need to upgrade (and are) because after all, if they get hit by a turbine, they won’t be available for you to blow them out of the sky with your big manly gun.

      D.

      • Blake says:

        Darrel, its not a myth, regardless of whatever whacko site you referenced- I have been to these turbines- a bunch of us from the NWRA (National Wildlife Rehabilitation Association) of which I have been a member for the last ten years, had a sad “field trip” to one of these sites two years ago, during the dove and duck migrations- in addition to those carcasses, we found owls and hawks also.
        Yes, cars contribute to bird deaths, and no, I haven’t hunted in years, because it’s not much of a contest. There are some liberals I would give a head start, however.

        • Darrel says:

          At 2.19 birds per turbine, per year, I think we and the birds can learn to live with that. And that’s the older ones. Newer ones are of course, better designed.

          Why are conservatives always afraid to change? (answer given below) Non-renewable carbon based energy sources were always known to be finite and troublesome for the environment. Welcome to the future.

          D.
          ——————
          “As my friend and sometime debating partner William F. Buckley puts it in his book Up from Liberalism,

          “Conservatism is the tacit acknowledgment that all that is finally important in human experience is behind us; that the crucial explorations have been undertaken, and that it is given to man to know what are the great truths that emerged from them. Whatever is to come cannot outweigh the importance to man of what has gone before.”

          The business of conservatives is, in other words, to cling tightly to the past, and although such a stance can be admirable, a stale and musty doctrine is of little use at a time when the nation needs not to fear the future but to seek out ways to improve it.” –George McGovern, The Case for Liberalism

      • Blake says:

        Your idea of a “standard source” actually has the name”tree- hugger” in it? Are you totally insane, or what?

        • Darrel says:

          This is the genetic fallacy. Best to avoid fallacies when trying to make a point.

          If you had read the article, which of course you did not because it is difficult for you to learn new things or fairly consider other opinions, you would KNOW that it backs up it’s claims with standard references. As stated, it’s primary source is:

          http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html

          Here then are the references, for the claims in the article:

          ***
          References:

          Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States; National Wind
          Coordinating Committee; West, Inc.; August, 2001

          Battered By Airwaves; Wendy K. Weisenel; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; October, 2002.

          Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma; John S. Coleman, Stanley A. Temple, and Scott R. Craven; University of Wisconsin-Extension; 1997.

          Communication Towers: A Deadly Hazard To Birds; Gavin G. Shire, Karen Brown, and Gerald Winegrad; American Bird Conservancy; Jume, 2000.

          Communication Tower Guidelines Could Protect Migrating Birds; Cat Laazaroff; Environmental News Service; 2002.

          Effects of Wind Turbines on Birds and Bats in Northeast Wisconsin; Robert W. Howe, William Evans, and Amy T. Wolf; November, 2002.

          Synthesis and Comparison of Baseline Avian and Bat Use, Raptor Nesting and Mortality information from Proposed and Existing Wind Developments; West, Inc.; December, 2002

          The Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide; David Pimentel and H. Acquay; Bioscience; November, 1992.

          Tower Kill; Joe Eaton; Earth Island Journal; Winter, 2003.
          ***

          DAR
          You might consider stopping making a fool of yourself. Try to do a little investigation and thinking on your own rather than just tossing the genetic fallacy and then running away.

          Or don’t. I don’t mind plucking all of the low hanging fruit you provide.

          D.
          —————-
          “A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true.”

          See:

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

          • Big Dog says:

            The fallacy was you injecting the wind turbines into the argument. Nowhere did I mention it. I said unproven green technologies of which there are a few. You went for wind turbines as a strawman argument. I did not mention it but you injected it as if I did and then hijacked the thread in that direction.

            Obama is assuring the Saudis, as we write, that we will not be off oil anytime soon.

            • Darrel says:

              You gave no example of “unproven green technologies” that you claim “Obama would rather waste money on.” I DID give an example, that Obama endorses, that will continue to be an excellent green power source. A green technology that is repeatedly and consistently and ignorantly bashed on this site.

              No strawman.

              D.

            • Blake says:

              There is a down side to everything- electric, ethanol, farts, whatever you choose- eminent domain will be used as a cudgel to get things done, but the courts will hopefully slow things down, as people clog the system- unless Hussein goes the Chavez route, which wouldn’t surprise me.

  4. Blake says:

    And as for BHO not opposing nuke power, he doesn’t set policy, and he won’t go against his party- They do not want nuclear power, because the enviro-nuts do not want it. Enviro nuts want no power- they just want to go back to
    caveman times.
    They want no oil, no coal, no nukes- they want no transmission lines laid because it might harm the wildlife, they want no reservoirs, with or without hydro- electric generation.
    Talk about the party of NO- that is on your side, D.

  5. Big Dog says:

    The fact is, I never mentioned any particular technology. You selected wind and made it the debate. Blake has good points. I don’t know much about birds and don’t really care about them. Seems to me if the environmental wackos are OK with birds getting wacked then they should be OK with drilling at ANWR since the caribou will not be harmed (despite claims to the contrary).

    It is amazing how the animals matter so much when we want to drill for oil but not so much when the technology is what the greenies want. I have heard about a number of issues regarding noise. A family in England had to turn theirs off after they put it where the government said because the noise bothered people. In PA there are some of these and the sound drives people nuts.

    And I might get on board when Ted Kennedy is held to the same standard.

    BTW, how much electricity can they generate? Will this be like ethanol where it takes more energy to make it than it provides?

    I did not have to give examples. It was a general statement.

    Obama has told some whoppers. My father was agnostic. Now he is saying that daddy was a Muslim. He has lied.

    But, with the whole intent issue I never want to hear the words Bush Lied again.

    I don’t know what you mean by try them. They were already vetted and they were deliberate exaggerations to give a certain message. That makes them lies.

    Here is another. I never heard Rev Wright say those things. How about Bill Ayers is just some guy in the neighborhood. The qualifier JUST gives the statement its meaning and thus provides the lie.

    • Randy says:

      “BTW, how much electricity can they generate?”

      Lots. Gigawatts. Enough to power several flux capacitors.

      “Will this be like ethanol where it takes more energy to make it than it provides?”

      No, not at all. Once they start generating power, they only need to be greased and cleaned. The wind does the rest.

      You are correct that they are noisy though. Nothing is perfect. Photovoltaic panels don’t make any noise. I am kind of curious to what these unproven technologies are that you speak of. I also would like to know why we shouldn’t invest in developing technologies that have yet to be proven.

      • Big Dog says:

        I did not say that we should not invest in trying to make them and come up with a viable energy source. What I, (and Blake for that matter) have said is that we can’t just scrap oil and stop drilling for what we have when the technologies do not exist to replace it. Once those items have been proven then we can ween off oil (though we will not get rid of it in our lifetime).

        • Randy says:

          What is being suggested as energy policy by the current administration and current legislators, and what is going to end up being energy policy, is going to include the slowing down of the expansion of drilling for oil. Not scrapping it. Not stopping drilling. We aren’t scrapping coal either. Simply encouraging the addition of other clean and viable energy sources to our collection of energy resources.

        • Blake says:

          Do you really believe that Randy? First- there has been NO “SPEEDING up for searching for oil”, so there has been no “expansion” of the search either. There will be a slowdown, and this will hurt the poor people the most, for they can’t afford new hybrids- they have to continue to use gas, and they will be further taxed when Hussein raises the gas tax as he will.
          His INTENT is to make everyone FEEL THE PAIN at the pump so we all beg him to make the pain go away.
          He’s “encouraging” other changes the way Don Corleone used to do in the film.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “there has been NO “SPEEDING up for searching for oil”,”>>

          DAR
          Blake, you really don’t know your bottom from your elbow on this issue so you shouldn’t try to speak about it. The US sits on about 3% of the world’s oil now and we have more wells than ever getting the last few drops.

          Note:

          “Drill more wells? In 1972 we had 508,000 pumping wells. Many of those wells have dried up or become uneconomical to operate, but despite that, in 2004 about 510,000 wells were pumping oil. We’re drilling about as many new wells as we can, both technologically and economically. The problem is the average volume per well – down from almost 19 barrels per well per day in 1972 to about 10.5 barrels per well per day in 2004. The same number of wells pumps only about half the oil of 30 years ago. You can’t make a 10-barrel-a-day well pump 1,000 barrels, no matter what you do.”

          DAR
          Please educate yourself about the world’s oil situation. I have put together a handy primer on this issue here:

          http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1873&p=9426&hilit=peak+oil#p9277

          Excerpt:

          ***
          SO WE’LL JUST FIND MORE OIL,… Right?
          The last large discovery of oil on the planet occurred more than 30 years ago, and virtually the entire globe has been searched to find additional deposits. 80% of oil being produced today is from fields discovered prior to 1973. These fields are now in terminal decline. In the 1990’s oil discoveries averaged about seven billion barrels of oil a year, only one third of what was being consumed. The discovery rate of multi-billion barrel fields has been declining since the 1940’s, and that of large (500-million barrel) fields since the 1960’s. In 1938, fields with more than 10 million barrels made up 19% of all new discoveries, but by 1948 the proportion had dropped to only 3%. The average reserves of oil field discoveries today is less than ten million barrels of recoverable oil; and ten million barrels will meet less than half a day’s oil demand for the United States alone. So to just fulfill U.S. oil consumption the world would need to discover more than 750 of these new fields, each year, to replenish what was consumed in the previous year, not to mention still more discoveries to compensate for existing wells that become exhausted, and to fulfill the anticipated 2-3% increase in demand each year.
          The ratio of oil consumed to oil discovered each year is now about six to one: 30 billion barrels consumed, to only five billion barrels discovered.”

          ASPO-USA says, “The returns are coming in on how well exploration for new oil and gas fields fared in 2005. Overall the picture is disappointing despite the expenditure of some $15 billion by publicly traded companies alone. There were no significant (billion barrel or more) discoveries announced in 2005. Worldwide, total new oil discovered during the year comes to 4.5 billion barrels — a 53-day supply at current rates of consumption. New discoveries in 2004 and 2005 were the lowest recorded since World War II.”

          Etc.

      • Big Dog says:

        You mean to tell me that we will need a petro product to lubricate them?

        There goes getting off oil.

        • Randy says:

          Not all lubricants are petroleum based. What is used in wind farms probably varies based on climate and other factors. Even if they all used petroleum based lubricants though, the lubricants aren’t being burned, which means they can be cleaned and recycled, and no emissions.

        • Blake says:

          As you have pointed out Randy, you still need transmission lines, and there’s plenty of resistance to them from some eco- nut quarters.

        • Randy says:

          Agreed Blake, but as I have said before, everything that transmits electricity for power requires transmission lines. We can build huge amounts of nuclear power plants, or coal fired power plants, or any other kind of power plants (and we are going to have to the way power consumption is increasing)…they will all need transmission lines. Some eco nuts are unreasonable, but many environmentalists would like a reasonable alternative to stringing up lines on big towers. Those alternatives exist. It’s all part of the discourse.

      • Blake says:

        I would like to know, Randy, why we do not invest in technology that HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN over and over, while we begin to perfect other technology- but Hussein won’t do this- you KNOW he won’t and to waffle over this is dishonest.

        • Randy says:

          Like wind and photovoltaic solar power? They have been proven over and over. They can be refined, but so can anything else. They already exist and they already work.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “Here is another. I never heard Rev Wright say those things.”

      DAR
      No one has ever shown that Obama was at the event when Rev. Wright said those things.

      Nice try though. I do appreciate the attempt. Really. Keep trying.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Only a moron would believe that a person went to a church for 20 years and never heard that kind of hatred.

        I think it is pretty obvious even if no one showed it. No one showed Bush was ever AWOL but that never stopped the claims.

  6. Big Dog says:

    And I never concern myself with your so called scrutiny. You cite Huffington and other left wing sources and you post things out of context or change things. The war issue, you claimed I changed the conditions when the original statement was clear. You changed it with your toadies.

    You can spew all you want. When you come here and when you buddies come here I earn money for the ads. All that money goes to organizations that support the troops so keep coming back.

    You will never change my mind because I know what is right and I know what I believe. I have been raised properly and I earn my own way in life and do not get gubmint handouts. I am not on the plantation.

    But keep it up. It generates revenue.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “You will never change my mind because I know what is right and I know what I believe.”

      DAR
      The classic statement that every member of every cult says to themselves.

      BIGD: I have been raised properly…”

      DAR
      I’m glad. Did your parents teach you to call women the “C” word?

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        I am not a member of a cult. People in cults usually chant things like say, Yes We Can.

        I feel free to call people what I think they deserve to be called. If you don’t want to be referred to as something then don’t act like it.

  7. Big Dog says:

    The issue is where the lines come from. Many of the ones for wind or solar come from deserts a long way out (or other places that are remote) where as other kinds of power plants can be just about anywhere.