America's Unnecessary Energy Crisis

It's my belief that if it was not for mistaken leftyou on some issues but it's true.)
wing politics the US could be a comparative utopiaI have long noticed the hypocrisy of the left as
compared to what it has become. In this article Ithey drive their SUV's to work and then do some
would like to restrict myself to the energyrelatively insignificant thing like recycling a water
aspects of the problems created by the left. It'sbottle. They send their chosen elites off in
not that conservatives have exactly been doingairplanes to go to conferences on global warming.
what was necessary to solve our energyWhatever they do they don't really solve the
problems either, but I see the real blame comingproblems their so concerned about. They could
from mistaken left wing thinking. Let's go back todrive gas powered motorcycles using little fuel
say 1970 and examine what we should havethat have been available since the beginning of the
done differently starting then.last century, and they don't even appear to know
First, we should have invested in and built aabout electric motorcycles, but if they did they
nuclear grid capable of supplying power forwouldn't endorse them because its not a form of
residential and commercial purposes, and capablecentralized mass transportation.
of powering an electric transportation grid. Had weMy own view is that all the regulations and
done this we could have become completelyalternative energy strategies of the left are not
independent of foreign oil by the year 2,000. Wereally effective at solving any of our energy
would be using clean, efficient, and abundantproblems. But I really don't think it's a solution to
nuclear energy. Almost zero CO2, no globalenergy problems that they are after. Again it's
warming, no air pollution, and all the energy wemore like a political lifestyle. Nuclear energy offers
needed.all the things they supposedly believe in no CO2,
Currently, generation IV nuclear power plants areno oil, and inexpensive abundant energy produced
being designed. We should have invested moreby mother nature. But instead of favoring it the
and sooner in these new technologies. This newleft and the greenies are busy claiming that
generation of power plants improves disposalnuclear energy is not a renewable energy source.
issues by reusing fuel. This also solves the fuelThey create their mother-nature concept
supply issue. The Chinese have already contracted'renewable energy'. Does it have a definition? Is it
with Westinghouse to build at least 4 AP1000something that works in a cycle? Breeder
nuclear plants, and they are now ahead of us inreactors can create their own fuel. For me that's
implementing this vital technology. The plants offergood enough, and it's better than covering half the
several advantages over previous generations ofplanet with corn fields.
nuclear power including that they are 'nonCritics of nuclear energy point out disposal issues.
proliferation' and do not require refueling for 30They make uneducated or manipulative
years. The plants include 'passive safety' whichstatements like "do you want to store nuclear
means they shut down without humanwaste in your backyard?" The fact is a given
intervention if necessary, (which is supposed tofamilies share of the nuclear waste would be
be exceedingly unlikely). The plant design is muchimmeasurably insignificant and wouldn't compare,
smaller and simple compared to previousfor example, to their share of exposure to
generations.pollution from a coal plant. New generation IV
Second, we should be using alternative modes ofplants and disposal methods go a long ways
transportation. I see a world where transportationtowards solving these waste issues.
occurs without dependence on oil. I envision usingNORM stands for naturally occurring radioactive
electric: motorcycles, cars, trucks and trains, andmaterials, for example, radon exposure in homes
supplementing this with ultralight aircraft and evenbuilt in granite ground. The fact is that NORM
larger aircraft such as the Aeroscraft. It's aaccounts for 10,000 times more exposure than
complete solution that could be implemented withnuclear power plants do. (Personally I think it's
technology available since before 1970.more but I didn't do the math.) In fact coal
My thesis of why we have not yet made theseproduction also leads to the release of radioactive
changes is that the left corruptly avoids actualmaterials. So does the making and using of
solutions to problems that form core componentsfertilizers. The fertilizers used in corn fields used to
of their political agenda. This is a key idea. It's sortproduce ethanol create radioactive waste. I would
of like oil companies that supposedly block theguess many more magnitudes worse per Joule of
production of electric cars. The left doesn't wantuseable energy produced as compared to nuclear
a solution because they want to mandateenergy production. So why does the left prefer
regulations. They want to be in charge ofethanol and not nuclear? Because its part of their
businesses and enforce an eco-lifestyle. Theylarger energy solution: Endless hordes of
want endless cadres of bureaucrats deciding onbureaucrats trying to mandate a lifestyle and
how energy is to be used, and they want to begetting paid to do it.
able to blame 'wasteful businesses' and 'big oil'.I would like to point out this is not necessarily an
Controlling energy is an important component ofattack on alternative energy as it is on the refusal
the left wing agenda. Nuclear power solves theof the left to endorse an obvious solution: nuclear
problem which means it puts the left out ofenergy. In addition as explained I favor a variety
power. How can they mandate a lifestyle andof energy saving ideas everything from electric
complain about business when the problems aremotos to LED lighting. Combining these ideas there
solved? The 'green people' don't really wantis no reason we should be using any foreign oil.
endless free inexpensive clean energy. That wouldTrying to shed some light on energy issues:
end their lifestyle. (Sorry greenies I agree withLEDHomePlace.