Drill here- drill now has been my mantra for a long time, to help break our dependence on the world for energy. Simultaneously, we need nuclear power. For 50 years the US Navy has safely sailed around the world on nuclear power and it’s time for us to bring that technology ashore.
Bill Gates, along with Toshiba, are in the process of developing a small nuclear reactor that can run continuously for 100 years without any refueling. Currently, Toshiba’s US based partner; Westinghouse, has already built a model that can run up to 30 years continuously. The left propagates their unwavering desire for clean energy yet the refuse to sit down and really talk about fixing our energy problem.
Imagine a small nuclear reactor that any city or rural town could buy to significantly drop the cost of energy and help maintain a clean environment. It will be here soon. While small villages in Alaska are running on diesel generators that can cost close to $12 a gallon to fuel they could soon take advantage of technology we ALREADY have. So much of Obama’s Presidential Campaign regarding clean energy was that technology is “right around the corner” that would enable us to be independent and clean. Well, we actually have it now. While Gates and Toshiba have yet to reach the 100 year mark on their small reactors, even using a generator that has a 30 year capacity without refueling is far better than anything wind energy will ever have to offer us – and we can put them anywhere.
It’s time to just ignore the left. It’s time to ignore their misconceptions and irrational arguments against nuclear power and start to make choices that will actually benefit all Americans, rich and poor. Boost job growth with lower energy costs. Create permanent, high-tech jobs to build and manage these plants. While it frustrates the left, the simple, common-sense answer truly can have an positive impact.
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
Caleb Howe
Daniel Horowitz
Lori Ziganto
The numbers are super attractive
Beaglescout (Diary) Tuesday, March 30th at 11:40AM EDT (link)One of the micro-nuclear reactors that was publicized last year had a cost of $27 million and would last for 7 years, serving an average 60,000 households. It could be replaced with a new self-contained unit 7 years down the road. Divide things out to get the cost of the energy to power 60K households and you get $5.35 per month per household, plus financing fees. In my area of the Gulf Coast (where it is HOT in the summer), if the local coal power plant augmented its power with a couple of these it wouldn’t even be a blip on the $300 per month bills that people are getting for electricity this winter. I am dreading what the bills will be this summer, thanks to Obama’s destructive policies toward energy.
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
I am ashamed to admit it, but...I can't scale that.
Chemical Sam (Diary) Tuesday, March 30th at 12:04PM EDT (link)Save the biggies for public facilities, you know, stadia, casinos, ports, hotel complexes.
Would it be beyond the realm of possibility to have a household variety installed where the gas furnace might be now (or buried below it)? I’d put one in my home, and spend the rest of my life BBQing on an electric grill, if that’s what it takes. Not an easy thing for a transplant Texan to say!
Would thermonuclear generators (TNGs, with no moving parts like on a satellite) be a viable solution for the household?
Could the savings in copper transmission lines make up for the cost of further dividing radioactive resources?
Of course, all this, on any scale, personal or corporate, would require some way to deal with the general hazards and liabilities of having nuclear material around (dirty bombs, nuclear theft, the huge accountability problem, and so on), but I think it’s work a look.
Criterion Chemical was in the black for FY2010!
Not bad considering the forces arrayed against small business these days.
Let’s see about actually making some serious profit this year. Shameless capitalism, by:
www.criterionchemical.com