Skip to main content

Hanson on Energy Security

By Eric McErlain
Victor Davis Hanson says it's time for the left and right in American politics to meet in the middle and do something about America's energy independence and energy security:
If the left pushed nuclear power and more drilling, and the right pushed more mandatory efficiency standards and alternative fuels, the United States could cut its imports and collapse the world price.

Imagine the dividends to America that transcend even scaling down our trade imbalances. Cash-hungry failed foreign nations would now have fewer resources to aid terrorists like al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or even to fund anti-Western madrassas. The Arab Street would have to blame its own elites for mismanagement rather than Western bogeymen. And it would be far easier to curb weapons of mass destruction if madmen lacked the oil to pay for them.
Technorati tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Even if he says smart (smart? Even a 5 year old child understand we need more nuclear power, less oil consumption and less CO2-emissions) things today, Victor Davis Hanson is a total loney. He is a hack and an incompetent and a neocon traitor who dragged the US into Iraq which has costed at least $400 billion, that's right it equals 200 GW new nuclear capacity, minimum.

Aargh.

http://www.exile.ru/2005-July-28/victor_hanson.html
January 17, 2006 at 9:43 AM
Anonymous said…
I agree that the money devoted to the war in Iraq would have been better spent on building new nuclear power plants in the US. However, liberal leftist enviromental fear-mongering has contributed to the anti-nuclear climate and stymied the growth of this vital industry with excessive government regulation. That left no other choice than reliance on fossil fuels. So if the liberal left wants someone to blame for the war in Iraq, it need look no further than the anti-nuclear fringe element of society that it has catered to for so long long. We have chosen Blood for Oil, Democrats as well as Republicans, but we could have chosen Atoms for Peace. Shame on neo-cons and liberal Deaniacs alike. George Bush has done exactly want we needed and wanted him to do - secure our heroin (I mean oil) needle for us. We are to blame, NOT Prof. Hanson.

Regards,

Paul W. Primavera
January 17, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more