Skip to main content

The Future Is Now

smalley_fig05bThis made us laugh and we thought we'd share it with you. While reading through various commentary of the energy bill passed by the House today - a non-starter for us and apparently for everyone else too - we ran into this comment from the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States:

The current proposals [by the ever-growing bi-partisan Gang, now numbering 22] would raise taxes on domestic energy producers in order to subsidize futuristic sources of energy such as wind and solar.

Futuristic! We've grown accustomed to our fellow energy generators recognizing that it's the mix that makes the cake and thus not belittling complementary industries, but we can certainly understand IPAMS's pettishness - especially given that its members don't sit next to a coast line.

They really are getting nothing from the House's latest maneuvers in addition to being punished, through no fault of their own, for being on the bad side of a developing energy policy.

(Nuclear energy didn't get a shout-out in the bill, either, but it didn't get spanked like its petrol producing pals. No knowing for sure, of course, but we think the Senate and White House are unlikely to move anywhere with this legislation.)

Still - futuristic! At least they didn't say fictional.

Picture of Miss Bolles and Miss Thorpe of the Connecticut Trapshooters League. You wanna talk futuristic, you can talk to the trapshooting gun.

More about how women shooters were treated in turn of the last century hunting magazines here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have always thought that energy sources such as wind and solar are really ancient, ancient technology. Windmills trace their origins back to medieval times, and solar goes back to essentially the stone age (heating caves, etc.). The human race has spent millions of years developing to the point of being less dependent on the vagaries of natural phenomena, and a scheme that places great dependence on energy sources vulnerable to them would undo that aspect of progress.
Norske-Division said…
Great comment, anonymous.

As far as these energy sources being "futuristic" I think that "fictional" would have been more appropriate!

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...