Letters To The Editor Continued: Alternative Energy Is a Long Way Off
Alternative Energy Is a Long Way Off
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In response to Marirose Pratt's Op/Ed column, "Offshore Drilling No Silver Bullet": I am all for developing all forms of energy, but alternative energy will take decades to have any significant impact on our energy needs. It accounts for only 7 percent of our energy needs and if developed will be able to increase to only 12 percent over the next decade, according to the experts. Green energy efforts in other countries show that it actually costs jobs and doesn't create new ones.
America needs a path to energy independence now that requires:
- Drilling now for oil and natural gas. Drilling companies state we can produce oil in two years -- not the seven to 10 years that opponents claim. With today's technology there are no real environmental concerns (Katrina proved that!).
- Building nuclear power plants. Eighty percent of France's power is nuclear. America can do better.
- Killing cap-and-trade and focusing on clean-coal technology until alternate energy sources can be developed.
- Recognizing man-made global warming for the hoax that it is. We need to improve our environment -- not through radical programs and policies but with continuous progress.
Implementing these steps would cost much less and become reality much sooner, if not for all the government bureaucracy, red tape, and needless regulations. Write your congressmen. Moving forward on this will create jobs, help the economy, reduce the deficit, and achieve energy independence on the path to a better environment.
Larry Turner.
Midlothian.
State Business Climate Ranks at the Top
Editor, Times-Dispatch: Regarding Jeff Schapiro's recent column, "Business Gives Va. the Business": Since time out of mind, Virginia has spawned a climate that has resulted in a unique business-government relationship, which in turn has over many years resulted in superior economic performance. Specifically, Virginia enjoys the highest per capita income in the Southeast, nearly 10 percent higher than the national average. Its unemployment rate even in these difficult times runs as much as 40 percent below the national average.
Well-regarded companies such as Dominion, Rolls-Royce, and Northrop Grumman choose to do business not for handouts and other cynical reasons that Schapiro suggests but because, as Forbes.com notes, for the fourth consecutive year Virginia is the best state for business.
The aforementioned companies, along with many others, do business in Virginia for the simplest of reasons: The commonwealth possesses a highly skilled and highly educated work force, an enviable quality of life, and a regulatory environment that is balanced and sensitive to the citizenry as well as to the corporate community. Not surprisingly, we are the envy of the vast majority of other states in terms of economic performance.
Policymakers in Virginia understand that our future relies on available jobs and an economic climate that is conducive to job creation and retention. And our governors and legislators have toiled for years to benefit the state's most important resource: its people.
Schapiro's implication that Virginia's business climate does harm to the commonwealth does not stand up. Virginians in every corner of the state benefit from this singularly positive business-government relationship. It would be folly to reverse this course, especially in view of the intensely competitive economic environment in which we operate. Hugh Keogh, President and CEO, Virginia Chamber of Commerce.
Richmond.
Did Security Adviser Miss Outpost Attacks?
Editor, Times-Dispatch: James Jones, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, says that Afghanistan "is not in imminent danger of falling to the Taliban." He states that he doesn't think the discussion about sending more troops to Afghanistan is an important issue. He also points out that the al-Qaida presence is "diminished" and the "maximum estimate is fewer than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."
Jones must have missed the attack that happened just hours earlier on the two U.S. outposts near the Pakistan border. Even though there may be fewer al-Qaida forces, al-Qaida still has influence on Taliban forces and a mix of tribal militias. This is clear in the attack on those two outposts that killed eight American soldiers.
Even if al-Qaida's forces are diminished, they are in a coalition with tribal militias and Taliban forces. This means they are still a threat. As long as this coalition is present, al-Qaida is still a threat, no matter how small its forces are. As long as these three factions are working together, it is a single, common enemy.
Jones is turning a blind eye to all of this. Pretending that this attack isn't a sign that more troops should be sent to Afghanistan is just playing ignorant. Al-Qaida is clearly still dangerous as long as it is part of that coalition. As George Will would say, Jones is playing the White Queen: He's closing his eyes, taking a deep breath, and imagining the impossible.
Phil Liotta.
Fork Union.
Only the Names Have Changed
Editor, Times-Dispatch Correspondent of the Day Phil True ["'Old Times' Op/Ed Left Out Some History"] challenged columnist Paul Greenberg's assertion that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler at Munich in 1938. True claims that Chamberlain had no other option (a viewpoint I dispute, since Chamberlain did take Britain to war in 1939).
To understand Chamberlain and Hitler at Munich in 1938, consider the years 1934 to 1938. In 1934 Germany was economically and militarily weak compared with Britain and France. But by 1938 the German military had achieved equality with Britain, France, and Czechoslovakia; thus, the Munich treaty.
Today, the stage is the Middle East and the actors are different. Iran plays the part of Nazi Germany, the United States that of England, and President Barack Obama plays the role of Britain's prime minister. The script, however, is the same and the year 2010 parallels 1934.
The real correlation between the two eras lies in the intent of the players. Like the Nazis, the mullahs of Iran are determined to achieve their cultural ideals, uninterested in rational negotiations. Today's American public, like the British and French in the 1930s, is mainly focused on domestic and social issues. Obama, like Chamberlain, has an abhorrence of war, yet displays a willingness to correct perceived ethnic imbalances. The Palestinians of today are the Sudeten Germans of yesteryear.
In 1938, Czechoslovakia was betrayed in the interest of peace. Some time in the next few years, the United States will betray Israel for "peace in our time."
John H. Neblett.
Richmond.
Reader Reactions
No problem Blackbird. I have done the very same myself more than once.
I don’t have access gto my notes right now but I did find a chart that showed the amount of acerage needed for each energy source I remember that solar in particular was at the top of the list. There were other technologies that required humungous quantities of water.
You can google it if you are interested. It was an eye opener.
mrright-
I am a true AGW skeptic. Because it is an “irrefutable” scientific fact that CO2 ALWAYS FOLLOWS the warming.
That is why the CO2 continues to rise and the global temperature does not.
Is man polluting the air and water? Of course they are. That issue has to be addressed. Yesterday. But is that pollution causing world wide climate change engendered by CO2. No, it is not. Reducing CO2 emissions in Europe at huge cost has been an abject failure in achieving the stated goal. Because they are trying to solvde a problem that does not exist.
We do not want to do the same thing.
If I might recommend two web sites. Each with opposing viewpoints. They are both very reader friendly and might help some to make up their mind on this crucial issue.
On the skeptic side is Wattsupwiththat.
And the warmist site is Realclimate.
Please try them out. You won’t be sorry.
Yes, I want to convert my car to Nat Gas, but only if I can refuel at home..and find a pump at my local station. It not only makes less CO2, but it CHEAPER, and IT IS IN THE USA! We have alot more NAT GAS available then Oil, at least that is my understanding. So feel good , schmel good, this makes ALOT OF SENSE!
But it’s the old chicken and egg, until there is a way to fill you car up, your not going to switch, until you switch they aren’t going to build filling stations.
Again, with the Nuclear…the cost is astronomical if you take into account the storage costs. Say it takes only costs $1 dollar a year to store spent fuel until the year 102,009 AD….that’s $100,000 (1x100000). Say it costs $1000/yr to store thats $100 million. That’s just for storage of spent fuel? $1000 a year is no where near the real cost, what is the real annual cost? I can’t seem to find it anywhere, but it seems that Nuke plants are charged a flat storage fee by the gov’t and then the gov’t takes over the storage? That is a HUGE future liability. We are worried about Health Care costs for the next ten years, what about Nuclear Waste storage for the next 1 million years!
The timeframe in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years.
Yet, somehow these costs are ignored when it comes down to the kilowatt per hour fee? I don’t understand that at all. Solar and Wind don’t have these future liabilities. That is all I am saying.
sorry greta got the article wrong.
The cost arguments against Nuclear power is the same that makes solar and wind impractical.Do you know how many solar panels and windmills it would take to provide just a FRACTION of our enrgy needs.Building more nuclear power plants and oil wells and refineries would at least provide more bang for the buck(no pun intended) and create lasting jobs, which is something green energy schemes cannot claim.We COULD pursue both courses of action with the proper leadership and reasoning.
Anyone who wants to can get their car coverted to LP gas today, for a price.Do it now if it makes you feel better, but until somebody PROVES that man made global warming is more than just ‘ UN consensus’ I say we follow Mr. Turners suggestions.
The warmest year on record was 1998.Since then, average global temps have decreased as CO2 levels have increased.
Someone explain that to me, please.
Blackbird-Mr. Liotta’s letter was on Afghanistan.
I complimented him on his comments.
My other comments were on Mr. Turner’s letter on global warming.
Nobody is suggesting that America go all nuclear like France.
Certainly not me.
Nuclear has problems just like the rest of the possible solutions to the energy supply question.
The answer probably does lie in a conglomeration of all existing and yet to be developed technologies.
There is always unintended consequences. Some major some minor.
The trick is not to dive in head first
like they have in Europe and had to do an about turn back to bad old coal.
They are busily constructing 50 new coal plants all over the continent that ar due to be in operation for decades.
This is because they miscalculated and could not supply the energy needed with their new “renewable” projects.
So now they are stuck with sky high taxes, an actual loss of jobs no reduction in emissions, no “climate change” and they are back to coal to prevent rolling blackouts and all the attendant problems.
FYI-“France reprocesses its own spent nuclear fuel. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Japan also send, or have sent in the past, spent nuclear fuel to France for reprocessing. High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic disposal.“
Fact Sheet
Office of Civilian radioactive Waste Management
Ok, so Greta and Mr. Loitta who is going to pay for all those new Nuclear Plants…they just appear don’t they. They grow naturally out of the ground. No one has to finance them, there is no cost attached to them. No one has to protect them 24 hours a day from terrorists. Everyone loves to have one in their backyard. Everyone loves France, so let’s follow their lead. No one has to deal with the spent fuel for 100,000 years, because that’s all taken care of by some future alien space creatures that will come and
save us from our radiant future.
FROM TIME MAGAZINE Dec 31, 2008:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1869203,00.html
“The math gets ugly in a hurry. McCain called for 45 new plants by 2030; given the nuclear industry’s history of 250% cost overruns, that could rise to well over $1 trillion. Ratepayers would take the main hit, but taxpayers could be on the hook for billions in loan guarantees, tax breaks, insurance benefits and direct subsidies—not to mention the problem of storing radioactive waste, if Congress can ever figure out where to put it. And those 45 new plants would barely replace the existing plants scheduled for decommissioning before 2030.
This sticker shock has unnerved Wall Street. A Warren Buffett—owned company has scrapped plans for an Idaho nuclear plant; banks and bond-rating agencies are skeptical as well. In fact, renewables attracted $71 billion globally in private capital during 2007 while nukes got zero. The reactors under construction around the world are all government-financed. “I have to keep explaining: France and China are not capitalist countries!“ says Congressman Ed Markey, an antinuclear Massachusetts Democrat. “Nobody wants to put their own money into this so-called renaissance—just ours.“
Excellent letter Mr. Liotta.
On the contrary it is anti-science to keep insisting the anthropogenic global warming is “irrefutable.“
Anyone who is keeping up with the current science has left CO2 far behind.
Methane will make an appearance for while until the entire boondoggle disappears into the “deteriorating atmosphere.“
Of course that may not prevent Obama and Co. from being guilted into paying the tab for the imaginary problem in Copenhagen in December.
The EU who have been playing the Koyoto Protocol game for several years have discovered that they have not reduced emissions one iota the CO2 continues to rise and the temperature remains constant.
But somebody with deep pockets has to help pay for a continuing futile project, and who better than the Great Apologizer.
Actually if there were any truth to the theory the way they divine it, the UK would be the most culpable because they have been polluting with CO2 the longest.
There is no global warming, or controllable climate change or climate crisis or climate disaster.
I and many like me have come to this conclusion because we know and understand the science.
The ultimate answer will be in the ever-changing ever adapting climate that does NOT take any disastrous turns.
U.S. armed forces are embracing renewable energy, not more nuclear.
It should go without saying that other countries are going the same way.
I will soon be receiving checks for producing renewable energy through the State Renewable Energy Credit program.
I am also taking additional steps to conserve energy at home, which is cheaper and far easier to do than renewable energy.
In short, Larry needs to wake up and look around.
the Sun is too abundant…no one can
“control” the supply…therefore there is OVER supply. There is no “profit” margin, unless you can repackage it like bottled water and sell something people can get very cheaply, more expensively. That was my point. Yeah, I’d love to see over supply of solar energy.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.


Advertisement