Inconvenient Truth: Wind Energy Has Killed More Americans Than Nuclear
There has been quite a bit of hysteria among some major media outlets in the past few days regarding the potential dangers of nuclear power. Some have even suggested that the benefits of nuclear energy do not outweigh its potential dangers to human life.
The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here's an interesting fact you won't be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.
You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.
The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant's cement containment apparatus did its job - the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.
Nuclear accounts for about nine percent of America's energy, according to the Energy Information Administration, and has yet to cause a single fatality here. Wind, on the other hand, provides the United States with only 0.7 percent of its energy, and has been responsible for 35 deaths in the United States alone. So if we're trying to weigh the costs and benefits of each, it seems wind fares far worse than nuclear. Yet no one seems to be discussing plans to halt production of all new wind farms until Americans' safety can be guaranteed.
Of course there are potential dangers to nuclear energy that the nation, thankfully, has not had to endure. But when assessing the dangers of a given technology, it usually helps to look at what has actually happened, not what could maybe, possibly, conceivably happen in the event of a Biblical-scale disaster.
Unfortunately, doomsday scenarios tend to get far more media play than level-headed analysis.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Sounds like Rachael Carson
Submitted by billb on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 2:13pm.
Sounds like Rachael Carson redux!Fork in the road...
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 2:15pm.
Looks like we as a nation veered to the left; that green fork to a dusty brown-out hell.
China is not stopping it's nuclear power construction.
China will not change its plan for developing nuclear power projects but will learn a lesson after a massive earthquake in Japan resulted in a radioactive leakage, Vice Minister of Environmental Protection Zhang Lijun said Saturday.
You Didn't Build That.
When I worked in the nuke
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 2:26pm.
When I worked in the nuke power industry our saying was, More people have died in Ted Kenney's car than in a nuclear power plant.
Construction is dangerous.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 2:48pm.
Those 35 deaths were all construction related. The construction business is a dangerous one. In 2006 alone there were over 1200 construction site fatalities here in the US. The yearly rate is about 7 deaths for every 1000 construction workers. What does that have to do with the differences between nuclear energy and wind energy? Since there hasn't been any construction of nuclear power plants in 30 years, any comparison between the death rates of of nuclear power operation and the construction of wind turbine generators in the last 30 years is irreverent. It's also highly misleading.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Stunningly dishonest
Submitted by evets11 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 8:43pm.
The article is stunningly dishonest. (Thanks, Cobraman, for your incisive comment.) The article talks about nuclear deaths in the US, but the Caithness report is international. If you really compare international incidents, you have to include Chernobyl, which killed about 30 workers in the first 3 months from acute radiation poisoning, and another 200 from cancer in later years.Actually... no, you are wrong
Submitted by SmarterThanLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:18pm.
Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor, a design not used in the US to generate electricity. It melted down because the Russian at the switch forgot to turn the water pumps back on after a "natural circulation" test, then the graphite caught on fire. So... if we are going to split hairs lets split them evenly and exclude Chernobyl from comparison because it wasn't REALLY a reactor failure that caused the fire, it was operator error.Sooo....
Submitted by SmarterThanLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:11pm.
Does the author's point that nuclear energy is safe still stand? Still zero deaths in America, right?Saved and Created
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 2:39pm.
Liberals count deaths from nuclear power plants in the same manner as they count jobs "saved and created" under the Obama administration. If somebody died of cancer who happened to live 500 miles downwind from Three Mile Island, then that counts as a nuclear power death. Anything possible counts.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
The anti-economic-growth Luddites are going to exploit...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:00pm.
...the Japanese nuke problems for all they can get out of them.
We may as well get used to it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
What is this article supposed to be?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:07pm.
1.) Where does the number 35 come from? The stats you linked mention 73 fatalities.
2.) Are you so sure that nobody ever died in a US nuclear power plant? It is not that seldom that somebody dies during construction of huge projects or while maintaining machinery.
3.) If you follow that logic the first thing to close would be any coal mine in the US.
Since I don't trust the media*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:16pm.
I did find this a very interesting article
She blew it with her first paragraph
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:39pm.
Otherwise it is quite interesting what she has to say.If you follow that logic the
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:20pm.
If you follow that logic the first thing to close would be any coal mine in the US.
And they are working on that.
Don't forget Biden..."No coal. No coal plants here in America!”
I think that was right after Obama said
“As president, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.”
But, as Nancy Pelosi said about Obama, There are a lot of things he was for.....on the campaign trail.
Curious
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:02pm.
How many nuclear accidents have happened in France, a nation that gets 78% of its electricity from nuclear power.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nuclear power deaths
Submitted by Kilroy on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:16pm.
You piqued my interest so here are the results of my search, France has had 0 nuclear power deaths and nuclear power accounts for 77% of French electricity. The US has 7 nuclear power deaths listed since 1961,3 were killed in an explosion in 1961 and the other 4 were electrocuted. There have been 99 nuclear power plant ACCIDENTS recorded worldwide since 1952. I don't have the numbers but I would strongly suspect in that period more people have been killed falling down stairs at home.Merci!
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:47pm.
It was a loaded question; I knew the answer was zero. :o)
Methinks that for once we can actually learn something useful from the French...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oh look. troglodyt is back making demands.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:02am.
I will answer one of your questions you demanded be answered Mr. troglodyt.
Yes. Nuclear power plants are the deadliest place to work on the planet.
Nuclear Power Plants cause between 600-1000 deaths a year per million people. The vast majority of them, 80%, are to the plant workers.
I will use the high figure because I just know deep in my heart it is closer to the truth. 1000 deaths per million per year. Hmmmm. Population earth - 6,775,235,741. At a rate of 1,000 per million. that would be 6.775 million deaths per year. 80% or 5.24 million of them workers at nuclear plants.
Now, in the United States, there are --- 50,400 nuclear plant workers.
Power plant operators, distributors, and dispatchers held about 50,400 jobs in 2008, of which 5,000 were nuclear power reactor operators, 10,000 were power distributors and dispatchers, and 35,400 were power plant operators. Jobs were located throughout the country.
Now the United States has roughly 104 of the 442 number of nuclear plants worldwide so let's be generous and say there are 250,000 nuclear power plant workers in the world. So that means that all of the nuclear power plant workers died 20 times over every year. So the average life expectancy of a nuclear power plant worker is approximately 2.6 weeks.
Very dangerous work indeed. But employment prospects are good if you want to break into that career.
Also, Mr. Markay's data included 40 years. At the rate of 6.775 deaths per year, this comes out to 271 million people dead from nuclear power since 1970.
Gruesome boys and girls. Gruesome.
English not your first language there Mr. troglodyt?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:21am.
troglodyt: Where does the number 35 come from? The stats you linked mention 73 fatalities.
Mr. Markay said, and I quote, "there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States". Ok. I know, way way way too many words. Let me pull out the important words. 35. United States.
The stats Mr. Markay linked was to a BRITISH website that counted fatalities WORLDWIDE. The 73 number. Yes. Yes. Yes. I know trollie. It is a big number. The 73 number is WORLDWIDE fatalities.
I know. It is so hard being a trollie. Damn monkeypeople and their damn counting and their damn numbers. Damn you monkeypeople. Too hard on trollies.
Dang you Veet. Why won't you shut up and leave trollie alone.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:34am.
Dang you Veet. Dang you to heell.
LBL troglodty: If you follow that logic the first thing to close would be any coal mine in the US.
What logic trollie? I know. I know. Really I do. Dang monkeypeople and their dang words and dang numbers. Dang all you monkepeople to Heell I say. That dang monkeyman Markay only spoke about hysteria in the media, dangers vs benefits, killer windmines, numbers on nuclear scum plants, and something about that compootors game Doom. Not a dang thing from the monkeyman about closing anything.
Did you get confyuzed again trollies? Trollies sure do have a habit of getting confyuzed what with all the dang monkeypeople numbers being thrown around.
Wait!
Mr. Markey said this --- Yet no one seems to be discussing plans to halt production of all new wind farms until Americans' safety can be guaranteed.
Huh? Halt production? But that would put monkeymen and trollies out of work. Why? Why would a monkeyman say that?
Lieberman: Stop new nuclear plants in US
Wait. A sitting United States Senator wants to halt production of all new nuclear plants? But why nuclear plants monkeyman Senator? MonkeyMan Markay said wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.
Stupid monkeyman. Making sense to other stupid monkeymen. I hate uze monkeypeople. I hate uze gutz. I poo on monkeymen. poo. poo. Look at me monkeyman, I may be stupid but you are not sose there monkeypeoples.
LBL troglodty: If you follow that logic the first thing to close would be any coal mine in the US.
Huh? Idiot to English translator requested. Yes. Yes. Yes. Again. I know. What are we to do. troglodty is posting again. He really is quite stupid.
THAT is the point!
Submitted by SmarterThanLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:21pm.
The author's point is that nuclear power is as safe or safer than other methods thus should be utilized more.The Big Scare.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:24pm.
900 above ground nuclear bomb tests were done in Nevada alone (plus other places) 1945-1992. 2 nukes dropped on Japan during WW2, with no health problems here. And now we should worry about leaks from nuclear plants in Japan?This manufactured crisis should be recorded in the book of history of how a big hoax works to obtain an effect on future policies.
I bet by the time this is all done there will be so many new safety regulations required that no new nuke power plants will ever be built again. That's in the liberal play book. You make something your opposed to very costly to do so it is not done. Take something like executions that they oppose and make it so expensive to execute a murderer that it is cheaper to have them in prison for life than to execute them.
So the BIG SCARE continues....
Here is a big scare*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:38pm.
You won't hear about this in the LSM.
One correction
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:42pm.
900 above ground is a little bit too much. Around 200 might be right.
You are right!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:55pm.
I am wrong. Thank you for the correction.The U. S. did 216 tests. Worldwide there were 521. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/atest00.html
trog, So America is the ONLY country doing above ground tests?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 4:18pm.
Snap out of it and add up all Soviet and Red China tests! Go ahead and post their test results, as you did the American tests. Ya Know All that freedom of information in Commie counties.You Didn't Build That.
How desperately do you want to fight a straw man
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 4:25pm.
?Trog, How many above ground tests happened in Nevada in 1992?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 5:18pm.
900 above ground nuclear bomb tests were done in Nevada alone (plus other places) 1945-1992.
What ever, trog it's bash America first, right.
Merkel should shut 'en all down!
You Didn't Build That.
ucw
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 5:53pm.
Red Jeep was referring to American tests, hence his admission below. But have fun fighting your straw man, now amended with alleged America bashing by me.Oh, by the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:32pm.
Oh, and by the way, the claim that no one has died in the US due to nuclear power in the last 30 years is wrong. Four men died at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in in Virgina in 1986 when a steam pipe burst. What a horrible way to die!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
There was an accident that
Submitted by mang on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:14pm.
There was an accident that killed quite a few construction workers in West Virginia when a cooling tower collapsed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willow_Island_disaster Bad story if they're talking about construction deaths. Seriously though the POTENTIAL of a catastrophic windmill failure is not exactly as serious as a nuclear power plant. I'll admit, it's kind of a humorous point, but NB is better than this.Catastrophies
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 7:55pm.
Well, the POTENTIAL of a catastrophy from a jumbo jet crash is greater than that of a small plane. But we still fly jumbo jets.Well, usually only those who consent
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 8:13pm.
To fly are at danger?I can not tell a lie...
Submitted by MSDUSA on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:37pm.
This article is full of crap.
In a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the 1979 Three Mile Island accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.
September 1980, an Air Force specialist was killed by a Titan II ICBM accident in Damascus, Arkansas (missile warhead hurled 600 feet from silo after pressurized fuel tank explosion).
An electro-chemist died at a Menlo Park, CA, laboratory December 1991 (cold fusion cell explosion).
Two workers died at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia on 27 July 1972 (steam release in a gap in a vent line).
What about the billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants that has been dumped into our waterways?
Questions
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:35pm.
How did the Dr. from the University of Pittsburgh reach his conclusions?
I would submit that we wouldn't have radioactive contaminants to worry about (as much) if the United States decided to reprocess waste materials, as the French have.
By the way, what of the French experience? As they get 78% of their energy from nukes...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Meanie
Submitted by John21 on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:45pm.
You have just ruined the media propaganda plan for the day, now they have to find something else to lie and panic about. The incident in Surry power plant was not nuclear related it was a cooling system failure on the clean water side.It's still related
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 3:55pm.
It's still related to nuclear power, (that "clean water" loop gets it's heat from nuclear power, just not directly) just like the death statistics related to wind power that this article cites. That's the point I'm trying to make. This article is highly misleading in both the comparisons between the safety records of both industries and the conclusions of those comparisons.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, it wasn't
Submitted by MSDUSA on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:38pm.
a NUCLEAR power plant?
Power sources that have killed more than nuc plants?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 4:30pm.
Water.
Solar.
Wind.
Coal.
Gas.
Manure.
Fire.
Hand generators.
Blah blah, blah, blah, blah blah! (Sounds like an Obama speech? No wait. That would be Blah BLAH, blah blah, ahhhhh, blah blah blah blah, BLAH BLAH!) .
Hell, more people have died of electrocution in all forms than have ever been killed in battle. Maybe we should ban electricity in all forms, along with fire. Then we could just flocking freeze to death!
I'm all for nuclear energy,
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:28pm.
I'm all for nuclear energy, wind energy, solar energy, and other forms of "clean energy". 9.0 earthquakes followed by tsunamis are rare. The precautions taken by nuclear power plants make nuclear energy quite safe, and I don't think that this tragedy will sway U.S. policy on nuclear energy.will sway U.S. policy
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:03pm.
Like 3 mile islands and "The China Syndrome" didnt,,,,,, right?
We havent built a plant since the 70's because why?
I know of at least one in the
Submitted by bob loblaw on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:19pm.
I know of at least one in the works in Georgia, still years away from operation though.Good
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
Keep an eye on it, lets see where the obstruction comes from.blob, Ain't poured a single yard of concrete, still code issues
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:41pm.
The last construction permit for a nuclear plant was issued on Jan. 27, 1978, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The last nuclear plant to go on line was in 1996, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Key word here is: "Planned"
You Didn't Build That.
Generational
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:51pm.
Construction plans. Hey, I wonder who foots the bill for this BS,,,,,,,,,,,, I hope your raising your hand.
double
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:33pm.
doubleDear Prof. Loblaw:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:33pm.
In case you haven't noticed, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ENERGY POLICY.
Obama's feelgood bloviating = zero.
Not true SoL
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 10:39pm.
Our policy is to hamper all efforts to create energy.Hiroshima
Submitted by papadon on Thu, 03/17/2011 - 9:36pm.
I read recently where they were attributing current deaths in Hiroshima to the 1945 bombing. I love to ask young folks about how many people they thought were killed at three mile island or how many were murdered at the Watergate break-in.I'm sure the answers are
Submitted by talkradio55 on Sun, 03/20/2011 - 5:30pm.
I'm sure the answers are horrifying, considering the sad state of public education. Just for kicks, what kind of answers do you generally get when you ask these questions?As if
Submitted by MSDUSA on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:41pm.
nobody died from the radiation.
For our anti-nuke campaigner
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:37pm.
Like how many? And please back up your rationale.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Wind Energy has a Cause & Effect
Submitted by rickahyatt on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 4:05am.
That's a scientific truth: There is no Cause without Effect. And I'm talking about more than some birds getting wacked. How do we know that this current slowing of the planet's rotation isn't caused by the drag induced by these stupid "Green" (Ergo Enemy Institutited) Wind Turbines? Think on it: If they drag upon the air's circulation, won't that slow the planet's rotation? What stupidity to think that such is "Wonderful," and "Good Intentioned," like all Liberal dogma?Yes. How did you know?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 4:24am.
Wind turbines have slowed the planet too much already. The planet has slowed so much in fact that the day now contains 24.5 hours. This is being covered up by the highest levels of government. At the current construction pace of wind turbines, the planet will continue to slow and by 2015, the day will be over 27 hours. But the government/industrial complex is covering this up by continuing to increase the length of the hour instead of adding more hours to the day. In fact, they are adding all the extra time to the business hours so that in fact we have to work longer for the same pay.
Don't let them fool you. Clock out at 2:15 PM like I do. I have already put in my 8 hours by then. The REAL 8 hours not the fake 6 hours like the government has fake set my watch.
Daylight Savings
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:09pm.
The government is using the confusion caused by changing our clocks to cover this up!"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
I have a solution.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:07am.
Right here.
H/T Archimedes
Don't be silly.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:18am.
Let's all grab something that is nailed down to the earth and pull it in a western direction at 12:56 PM Central Time today. We can straighten the whole thing out.
Also. Le'ts turn half of the wind turnbines around. So they are pushing instead of pulling.
Ah. Ah. Ah. The Genious Switch has no OFF position!!!~!~!@!! Eleventy!
OK Vet,
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:25am.
Do you think I should hitch up the Mule also, or would that be to much?Oh do that sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:51pm.
You know half of the planet will be in darkness at 12:56 PM like Panama and Brazil for example. So they prolly won't get out of bed to help. Hitch up the whole team.Count me in, Sir. 12:56 pm it is.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:28am.
Sounds a lot easier than a global network of municipal steamballs.You have those fires warmed up.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 12:52pm.
We may still need your wicked smart invention should we all pull too hard and we need to reverse course.HUH!?
Submitted by SmarterThanLibs on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 1:29pm.
Wind turbines create a "drag" slowing down the planet's rotation? Who fed you that line of crap?SmarterThanLibs---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 8:03pm.
The Vet was just kidding around.
He knows darn well the wind turbines have actually pushed rather than pulled, thereby speeding up the earth's rotation as opposed to slowing it down.
That has to be the reason I have aged so quickly after retirement. :o)
MD
MD*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 8:12pm.
Matthew, explain to smarterthanlibs, it's the same premise as Guam tipping over...
Zackly, cajun---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 8:26pm.
Like when Sheila Jackson Lee referred to the U.S. flag that Armstrong planted on the planet Mars.
Everyone knew she was just kidding, right? :o)
MD
Yes matthew*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 8:40pm.
Smarterthanlibs is forgiven since he has only been here 9 weeks, he has not yet caught on to The Vet's amazing ability to make fun of libs using their own words...;-)
How do you know
Submitted by MSDUSA on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:43pm.
the slowing is not caused by skyscraping buildings or FAT people?
Nuclear is still the way to
Submitted by wiwf on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 8:39am.
Nuclear is still the way to go.thanks Lachlan
Submitted by lotr on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 2:47pm.
Thanks for this piece -- I am growing very weary of this tragedy being hyped in a way to frighten the American public.
The earthquake and tsunami were both insanely powerful -- the death toll and damage would've been far greater but for the fact that Japan is prepared for earthquakes. As this piece implicitly points out, no form of energy is without risk.
The US is in dire need of more nuclear plants.
Wind and solar energy are fine and dandy, but they can't fuel massive power plants designed to power, say, cities like Las Vegas (namely, the air conditioning that makes "Las Vegas" even possible).
Oil and coal are also fine and dandy, but they both contribute massive amounts of CO2, the former being cleaner, but fully dependent upon supply from the Middle East, the latter being the dirtiest burning fuel out there -- it's basically a 19th Century technology (think of the old steam engines, used for locomotives and ships (e.g., the Titanic)), and their waste byproducts include carcinogens that are very detrimental to a person's health.
No form of energy is without risk...
Yet another tired myth
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:53pm.
I hate myths constantly being spouted as fact.
The freaking Middle East supplies us with MAYBE 15% of our oil!!! Why? Because THEY ARE TOO DAMN FAR FROM HERE!!!
Canada and Mexico are our biggest suppliers of oil, foreign source wise.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
good spot
Submitted by lotr on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:51pm.
My bad. I'm a bit confused though -- where did this myth originate? Of course, this doesn't diminish the general drawback of being dependent upon foreign imports for energy (the lifeblood of a good economy) and thus I don't back down from my statement concerning the need for more nuclear plants to meet growing electricity needs.Response...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:40pm.
I'm not sure - possibly because oil is THE biggie export from the Middle East. Not many talk much about Egyptian cotton (though it is there), but everyone nows the Middle East has oil.
The only issue I take with the rest of your statement is that I don't necessarily see imports of much of anything from evil foreigners as a problem. That includes energy. That being said, I am 100% down with nuclear energy. Indeed, we should be doing virtually anything and everything to develop energy sources.
What I DO think is a problem is being forced to import energy or to go with dubious supplies of energy just because our government doesn't like, for instance, oil, or some forms of coal. Importing energy resources due to free market demand is one thing. Importing because the United States government will not allow us to develop our own resources is idiotic and self-defeating, for ourselves and the world around us.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
think uns*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:56pm.
The lie is the same one spewing since Bush invaded Iraq for the oil. That lie now has to be "redefined" as stratman would say.
But of course
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:48pm.
Of course. But that tired line is a branch off a rather large tree, the trunk of which is that "All of America's oil comes from either TX, AK or OPEC nations in the Middle East". How many Americans, I wonder, realize that a good chunk of the gasoline they are putting in their gas tanks began its existence in the Athabascan (sp?) Tar Sands in Alberta?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
unsane*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:04am.
I have become convinced that the majority of americans are content to be uneducated and get their news from "the crawl" on the screen
And those
Submitted by MSDUSA on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:44pm.
who watch FAUX News...
Finally, someone makes an intelligent comment here.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:49pm.
Thank you, Sir. Well done.
Interesting...
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:40pm.
And not only are you an anti-nuke campaigner, you live in intense, total FEAR of a channel that may, on a busy news day, reach 1% of the population.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Oil men can now drill horozonally, Bakken oil is now an abundant
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 2:47am.
source of crude oil.
So all of a sudden this oil is now available for refining... No new refineries since '79...Get this...
That oil is now being transported to the gulf to be refined, now that the gulf refineries are sitting idle and the gulf has been declared a waste land, by a wave of the hand of the Shamanista.
My sister lives in Colorado where drilling for natural gas has been wild, rigs on every mountain top and valley, well the price of gas in that area is at 30 year lows...
You Didn't Build That.
Oil
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:37pm.
And that means that ND, MT and our friends north of the border in SK are going to get in on the act too.
That explains very much why so much oil is getting stalled at Cushing, OK...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
IIRC,It's loaded on barges/trains?, to bypass them choke points.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:12pm.
Permitting for installation of new pipeline continues.
Pipe!! Gawd, mankind has been using pipe for thousands of years..
Ok then build this. Green light this refinery, and in 4 years shazam gasoline.
FAAT CHANCE
You Didn't Build That.
Kinda. I get confused. I am not an oilman.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:48pm.
The WSJ has been covering it. There is stuff about spreads between the different types of oil and reversing pipelines and oh I have a headache.
Agree with The Vet*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:09am.
That oil bidness is confusing. But to my simple mind comes this summary. We have only begun to import foreign oil after the 70's because the rules and regulations have overpowered the oil companies and the refineries. We have not built a new refinery in decades. And, there is different kinds of oil. So, the refineries are not equipped to handle certain kinds of crude. That is one of the reasons we only buy 5% of our oil from Libya. We cant process it. We are better equipped to handle Gulf oil which of course has been dwindling since the moratorium as well as the ever increasing rules and regs making it very expensive to drill in the Gulf. Add to the troubles, the existing refineries have had to re adjust the processing to accommodate the govt demand for ethanol inclusion to gasoline at yearly incremental increases.
I just leave out all that chemistry and economics for the experts....;-)
Importing in and of itself isn't a problem, but...
Submitted by lotr on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 1:11pm.
Importing isn't a problem per se, but oil is at least partially to blame for the unprecedented trade deficits of recent years. I'm not an economist, so I get in over my head with this stuff, but intuitively, from a common sense POV, I can't imagine a huge, sustained, indefinite trade deficit being an economically desirable thing.
Bottom line and my main point is that no form of energy is without risks. There should've been construction of numerous nuclear plants throughout the 1990s (during Bozo's term w environmentalist Algorista leading the charge).
Nukes, oil...
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:41pm.
Hell, there should have been construction of nuclear plants throughout Reagan's term, Bush the Elder's, Clinton's, etc...
Trade deficits. Yawn. That can rise and fall based on the strengths/weaknesses of the currency. I don't even bother with trade deficits anymore. I think they are about one step away from being meaningless.
I think it's fine if we import oil if we need to, but not when it's because the government is doing everything in its power to prevent us from looking within our borders for sources of oil.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Nuke Power
Submitted by Jackson Pearson on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 4:51pm.
There's nothing wrong with nuclear power. Three Mile Island had a problem, was identified, and immediately corrected, of which was operator training, and installing redundant systems. Since then, there have been few, if zero occurrences in the United States. On Japan, the nuke plant survived the earthquake, but the backup electrical cooling system and switch-yard did not survive the tsunami. Clearly an anomaly that people should not get exited about. I'm sure future Japanese engineers will even correct that.Its funny that
Submitted by MSDUSA on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 3:59pm.
people, such as yourself focus on the publicized incidents.
Did you know:
In 1980, a 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory caused a tritium leak.
In 1984, the Department of Energy temporarily shut down the Fernald Uranium Plant, after it was determined that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps (where they seeped into the groundwater), 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing (its whereabouts completely unknown) - the plant was not permanently shut down until 1989.
In 1986 the U.S. Government, after 40 years of cover-up, released 19,000 pages of classified documents that revealed the Hanford Engineer Works leaked discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, soil and air of the Columbia Basin. In July 1990, 270,000 people received low doses of radiation from Iodine, 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe and 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number.
In 1997, a 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals stored illegally at the U.S. Government's Hanford Engineer works exploded and released 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water.
Its not just meltdowns people worry about.
Hey Kosbot:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:08pm.
Why didn't you just link to your Kos diary instead of just pasting in an excerpt?
Afraid no one would take you seriously?
Good Job!
Submitted by Kingfish17 on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:30pm.
Busted! Nice detective work, SoL.
"You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas...on the taxpayer’s dime." Barack Obama
Thanks, Kingfish
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:41pm.
I think he's Isotopophobic.
He made a typo, too, SoL
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:42pm.
When he created his user account. It should have been LSDUSA.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
MSDUSA
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 4:54pm.
How on earth, or what ever planet your from, do you release 20,000 gallons out of a 40 gallon tank? Yeah, whateverrrrrrrr.....do your ears bleed at night? Or is it really gray matter that leaks out?
Es gibt kein Heilmittel für dumm.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Questions
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:43pm.
Did you know that France, my dear anti-nuclear propagandist, gets 78% of their energy from nukes?
How many accidents have the French had?
How many people died from those accidents?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
But what about the UFOs?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 10:50pm.
I have 434 of the 19,000 pages from the Hanover Engineer Works that show 96% of the discharged plutonium liquids and gases were from downed UFOs that came here from Planet 10 by way of the 8th dimension.
Proof right here in my hands. Want me to publish it on my blog?
Go back to DU, Luddite troll
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 11:07pm.
You and your fellow-traveling ignoranus ilk won't be happy until the only people left in America that can afford electricity will be you and your stinking commie friends, who mooch and live off the taxpayers.
Up yours.
Sideways.
And go blow a Trabant, while you are at it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
More Power Houses Needed
Submitted by Jackson Pearson on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 5:23pm.
People are delusional and sadly misguided if they have a notion that America's future can be powered up with windmills and solar power. Those methods simple cannot generate enough electrical power...period. What this country should be doing for future growth, no matter what kind of fuel, coal, gas, nuclear etc, construct at least 10/15 new power houses per year, for the next fifteen years. Power houses capable of producing megawatt power the size of Arizona's Palo Verde nuke plant.