Dishonest denial of nuclear energy

Denver Post readers were recently treated to some of Ted Turner's advice to Obama ("Address causes of climate change", Nov. 30). Turner wrote as chairman of the United Nations Foundation, which manyColoradans will remember has as its president former U.S. Sen. Tim Wirth (D-CO).

So I went to the foundation's website to see what it has to say about energy. Right at the top is a recent article by Wirth, blather that could have come out of the environmental movement 35 years ago supplemented only by mention of the new bugaboo, that nasty carbon stuff.

In close to 900 words, this man who long ago drank the global warming Kool-Aid never mentions "nuclear." Nuclear-electric power has achieved a safety record unmatched by any other industry since the Industrial Revolution, and the plants do not emit any of the so-called "greenhouse gases" that are blamed (falsely) for global warming (that may no longer be occurring).

Here's the deal: Tim Wirth, Ted Turner, Al Gore, et al, have the resources to know that nuclear energy must be used far more extensively if they are serious about a transition away from fuels that produce carbon dioxide. Until they advocate nuclear energy, their worry about global warming should be considered a flat-out lie and ignored.

Crafty like a fox

After a bit more than a month away from the partisan battles, I'm back in my blogger chair. I've had a chance to ruminate on the 2008 election results, and to my great surprise, the sun continues to rise in the East and set in the West (though I'm sure global warming alarmists will soon say that this, too, is in mortal danger). The real impact, of course, of the decisive Democrat victory won't be seen for years to come. I have to hand it to the President-elect -- he's crafty like a fox. His early appointments were designed to give him cover from attacks from the right, and reflect the sober reality he now faces in dealing with both the financial downturn and the ever-present terrorism and security threat. His appointments of Geithner and Summers were reassuring to the financial markets which are now expecting a high-level of government intervention. For those of us who still believe in free markets, its not good news, of course.

The financial bailout undertaken by the Bush Administration and Paulson/Geithner before the election has ushered in a whole new era of government intrusion into the private sector. And Barack Obama, with his predilection for "spreading the wealth around" is just the guy to take maximum advantage of it. The government will own banks, auto makers and insurance companies before it is all through -- and tax payers will be on the hook for it all in the end.

Of course, Obama's early appointments don't give a full picture of what is yet come -- for his next appointments will surely be grist for the far left of the party, still smarting over Obama's decision to keep Bush Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Interior, Energy, EPA -- all of these will be given to a left-wing ideologue who will seek to roll back environmental regulations in pursuit of greenhouse gas restrictions. All that "Drill here, Drill now"? You can forget about all that; now that gas is back to $1.50 a gallon, you can bet we'll be returning to the days of alternative energy investments and ever stricter emission standards -- all just as the auto makers are seeking a multi-billion bailout. Makes no sense -- but, then again, the global warming religion is based on faith, not facts.

Take a look at this piece in the Wall Street Journal -- a great example of the above:

Mr. Obama...(is) a student of the late radical thinker Saul Alinsky, who argued that you do or say what's necessary in a democracy to gain power, while keeping your true aims to yourself. Mr. Obama's novel contribution has been to turn this exploitation on his supporters on the left (who admittedly are so wedded to their hero that, so far, they don't seem to mind).

His next big challenge is an upcoming conference updating the Kyoto targets. Mr. Obama has not backed off his overwrought climate rhetoric, but listen carefully to Al Gore. Now that Democrats are on the verge of power, he's backing off cap-and-trade and carbon-tax proposals (i.e. visible energy price hikes for consumers) in favor of a new approach -- massive government subsidies for 'green technology'.

That's right -- open up the spigot. As long as we're spending a few $Trillion on the banks, bad mortgages and all, why not throw a few tens-of-billions at alternative energy? Start the presses! It's only paper, after all!!

In the end, of course, there will be a limit to all this largesse -- and it will come when taxes rise to support the massive debt we are now taking on for our children to deal with. Remember when "balanced budget" was the cry in Washington? Those days are long, long gone. In its place we have socialism in all its European glory.

And of course, don't forget health care -- the next great socialist experiment that is coming your way, like it or not. As the WSJ again shows in a brilliant editorial today, Tom Daschle is going to reform your health care -- like it or not:

Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader who Barack Obama has tapped to run Health and Human Services. "I think that ideological differences and disputes over policy weren't really to blame," he writes of 1994 in his book "Critical," published earlier this year. Despite "a general agreement on basic reform principles," the Clintons botched the political timing by focusing on the budget, trade and other priorities before HillaryCare.

President-elect Obama will not make the same mistake. Congressional Democrats are already deep into the legislative weeds, while Mr. Daschle is organizing the interest groups and a grassroots lobbying effort. Mr. Obama may be gesturing at a more centrist direction in economics and national security, but health care is where he seems bent on pleasing the political left.

According to Mr. Daschle, because of the Clintons' hesitation, "reform opponents succeeded in confusing and even frightening Americans about what change might mean," and this time the Democrats mean to define the debate. Consider the December 2 letter to us from Senator Max Baucus, who is upset that a recent editorial on his health-care plan did not use his favorite terms of art (his style being surrealism). "It will require affordability, but premiums will not be set," he writes. So the government will merely determine "affordability" -- which might as well be the same thing.

You see the pattern here: the issue in health care reform is style, not substance. Forget any discussion of the merits, the 1993 initiative failed because it wasn't sold properly, not because there are any inherent flaws in the concept. And lest you think that there will be proper study and debate before such a bill reaches the President's desk for signature, think again -- for the Democrats, so sure are they in the righteous of their cause, aren't wasting any time:

Most disturbingly, Democrats are talking up "budget reconciliation" to pass a health overhaul. This process was created in 1974 and allows legislation dealing with government finances to be whisked through Congress on a simple majority after 20 hours of debate. In other words, it cuts out the minority by precluding a filibuster. Mr. Daschle writes that reform "is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol," and Mr. Baucus has said he's open to the option.

Any taxpayer commitment this large ought to require a social consensus reflected in large majorities, but Democrats are determined to plow ahead anyway. They know that a health-care entitlement for the middle class will never be removed once it is in place; and that government will then dominate American health-care choices for decades to come. That's all the more reason for the recumbent GOP to get its act together.

Like Saul Alinsky and the other radicals in Obama's background, the ends always justifies the means. Ram it through at all costs -- the goal of social justice can't be hung up on the niceties of dissent and debate.

Yes, elections have repercussions. And this one more than most.

As I've said many times, folks: Hang on to your wallets!

Xcel sticks us with green tab

I’m angry. Outraged! Coloradans were sold a bill of goods in 2004. Their primary supplier of electricity – Xcel Energy – has apparently been co-opted by a movement that will cost Colorado families untold millions of dollars and cheat the state out of who knows how many good jobs. And the gutless Xcel? It burnishes its image cost-free: the regulators have to give it whatever rate increases it needs for happily playing along with nonsensical policies. Want solar? Wind? Biomass? Carbon caps? Fine, suckers, we’ll be happy to just add those to your electricity bills!

Vincent Carroll’s recent column, “Nuclear’s new allure,” prompted me to write about an energy cost inquiry I made last year that should have taken 15 minutes, maximum. It remains incomplete and has nearly turned into an investigation.

Since early 2007, Xcel has bragged about a solar array in Denver’s Coors Field. Xcel’s ads report the system produces enough electricity to offset that used to operate the Rockies’ scoreboard. Yeah, just the scoreboard. Not the stadium lights and all the rest. About 14,000 kilowatt hours (KWH) per year.

Fourteen thousand KWH is produced in 13 seconds by the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix.

My cost inquiry? I wanted only to find out how much the Coors Field solar system cost – the price someone paid to be sweet, lovable and green. Should be pretty simple, no?

My inquiry went first to Xcel, which said I’d have to contact the Rockies. The Rockies said I’d have to contact the stadium authority. The stadium authority acted as if it didn’t even know what I was calling about. One statement among my files, obtained from a source at Xcel and embedded below, indicates the Rockies purchased the system, which “will inspire hundreds of thousands of fans per year.” Another, also embedded below, indicates that rebates from Xcel helped defray the Rockies’ cost. Yet another says it’s a Rockies-Xcel partnership. Who cares? All I want to know is how much it cost, which remains – to me, at least – a well-guarded secret.

On September 5, The Denver Post carried an column, ”Expect compromise on energy,” by former Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler (oops, she now carries the title “ambassador” according to the bio on her website). In her piece, Madame Ambassador lauds Xcel for its recent turnaround to embrace 2004’s Amendment 37. She also cites the high and rising amount of energy used around the world and asks, “Where will all this energy come from?” Her answer, “Only solar power has the promise to supply massive amounts of energy …” with a caveat about making it more efficient.

Despite her ignorant omission of nuclear, I thought Schoettler could at least get my Coors Field solar cost question answered quickly, so I wrote to her. Shortly I had an e-mail from Joe Fuentes at Xcel, who said he didn’t have the information but had “some calls out.” He also wondered why I had asked, and I sent a responsive reply.

That was nearly a month ago. A follow-up inquiry this morning brought this from Fuentes: “I think this is a deal where you need check [sic] with the contractor. We didn't pay to play.” Isn’t this the step on the merry-go-round where I got on?

Amendment 37 so prized by Schoettler requires Xcel and other Colorado electricity suppliers to meet certain milestones in employing renewable energy resources to produce the electric power they sell. “Eligible renewable energy resources,” according to Amendment 37, “are solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydroelectricity with a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less. … A fuel cell using hydrogen derived from these eligible resources is also an eligible electric generation technology. Fossil and nuclear fuels and their derivatives are not eligible resources.” (Emphasis added.)

I don’t know anyone who opposes solar, wind and the others in concept. However, cost being of no small importance to most consumers, why won’t Xcel see that we get an answer to my question?

(Sorry, slight correction needed on the above "no one." Though radio, TV and robocalls are full of T. Boone Pickens promoting wind power, an article in the July 21, 2008 Newsweek issue concludes with this Pickens admission: "There are no turbines on my ranch, because I think they are ugly.")

By the way, enough nuclear fuel has already been mined and refined to generate all our electricity for hundreds of years using breeder reactors. Perhaps Ambassador Schoettler can tell us why nuclear was specifically banned from the Amendment 37 renewables mix.

On second thought, one really needn’t ask; Amendment 37 was sold to Coloradans by a political movement that pretty much began 40 or more years ago with opposition to nuclear power. Generally the same ilk that now also opposes development of Colorado’s enormous shale oil resources which, of course, are also excluded.

======================================= Below are the three mutually contradictory Coors Field accounts as communicated to the author in an e-mail from Joe Fuentes of Xcel.

(Version 1) This 10 kW PV system is the first commercial scale grid-tie PV system in any major league stadium. Utilizing SunPower all black 215 watt modules, this system is designed to produce more energy per year than the scoreboard consumes. This system was specified by Xcel Energy and purchased by the Colorado Rockies. An IPS custom all black racking system seamlessly integrates the modules into the stadium structure. This solar system will inspire hundreds of thousands of fans per year.

http://solarips.com/colorado.php?topic=featured_projects

=============================

(Version 2) DENVER -- The Colorado Rockies announced today that beginning on Opening Day, Monday, April 2, 2007, 46 solar panels have been installed to provide power at Coors Field. The solar installation, the first in Coors Field history, is a result of a partnership with the Rockies and Xcel Energy.

The 9.89 kilowatt solar array, installed by Independent Power Systems, will produce over 14,000 kilowatt hours of energy, enough to offset the consumption of the Rockpile LED board over one year. In the walkway just under the system, a flat-panel monitoring system will show fans the real time consumption of the Rockpile LED board as well as the real time energy production from the solar array.

Fans will also be able to learn more about solar energy throughout the season at an educational display inside the ballpark. Xcel Energy and the Colorado Rockies will also provide energy and money saving tips to fans during the game.

http://colorado.rockies.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/col/y2007/m03/d29/c1868204.jsp

================================ (Version 3) http://investors.sunpowercorp.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=238809

Solar Power Raises the Score for the Colorado Rockies Coors Field Celebrates First Utility-Scale Solar Power Electric System in a Major League Ballpark

DENVER, April 20, 2007 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- This weekend, the Colorado Rockies will take on the San Diego Padres at home under a solar-powered scoreboard. The new 9.9 kilowatt solar electric system, which was installed by Independent Power Systems as a result of a partnership between the Rockies and Xcel Energy, is being celebrated on Earth Day, April 22. Comprised of 46 solar panels from SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq: SPWR), it is the first commercial- scale solar electric power system to be installed in a Major League Baseball ballpark.

The new system covers an area of 616 square feet and will produce more than 14,000 kilowatt hours of energy, enough to offset energy consumption by the Rockies' 'Rockpile' LED scoreboard for over a year. A flat-panel monitoring system shows fans at the ballpark real time system performance and scoreboard energy use, and the same data is available on-line at http://www.solarips.com/coors.

"This solar project delivers on the Colorado promise of the 'New Energy Economy' that I have been speaking about all over the state," said Colorado Governor Bill Ritter. "I congratulate the Rockies for their leadership and call upon Major League Baseball, the NFL, and stadium owners throughout the nation to follow the example we've set by deploying solar at Coors Field."

Independent Power Systems, a SunPower Premier Dealer, designed and installed the system in two weeks, just in time for the Rockies' season opener. "We designed the system to ensure that no glare from the solar panels will reach players on the field," said Independent Power Systems President Tony Boniface. "SunPower solar panels were the perfect choice for this project because they offer the highest efficiency on the market."

"Solar power is an essential component of our global energy mix, and companies such as Independent Power Systems and Xcel Energy are doing their part to ensure that it is an easy, affordable option for home and commercial use," said Tom Werner, chief executive officer of SunPower. "The Rockies have distinguished their organization as a leader, by bringing clean, renewable energy to a great American sport."

"We were pleased to partner with the Rockies on this project," said Pieter Leenhouts, director of strategic marketing at Xcel Energy. "This Earth Day, Rockies fans can celebrate their team's commitment to helping take America to a new level of energy independence."

Solar rebates from Xcel Energy helped offset the cost of the system for the Rockies. Similar rebates are available to both commercial and residential customers of Xcel Energy.

About Independent Power Systems

Independent Power Systems is a solar electric engineering and installation company in the Rocky Mountains. Based in Boulder, CO, the company has been installing renewable energy systems for 11 years in residential, commercial, and remote environments. To view projects please visit http://www.solarips.com

About SunPower

SunPower Corp. (Nasdaq: SPWR) designs, manufactures and markets high- performance solar electric technology worldwide. SunPower's high-efficiency solar cells and panels generate up to 50 percent more power per unit area than conventional solar technologies and have a uniquely attractive, all-black appearance. For more information on SunPower please visit the SunPower website at http://www.sunpowercorp.com. SunPower is a majority-owned subsidiary of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (NYSE: CY).

SunPower is a registered trademark of SunPower Corp. PowerLight is a registered trademark of PowerLight Corp. Cypress is a registered trademark of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

SOURCE SunPower Corporation

Barton Churchill of Independent Power Systems, +1-303-443-0115, bchurchill@solarips.com; or Ingrid Ekstrom of SunPower Corporation, +1-510-868-1368, ingrid.ekstrom@sunpowercorp.com http://www.sunpowercorp.com Copyright (C) 2007 PR Newswire. All rights reserved

BHO vs. McCain on health care & energy

Health care and its rising costs, and declining availability, have become issues, and on this score McCain’s proposals are superior to Obama’s. Between government domination of the market through Medicare, Medical and other publicly funded programs, and tax-free employer-based plans, Americans have less and less say over the cost of their health care. Instead of budgeting for routine visits to the doctor, just as we do with food, clothing, gasoline and other household costs, and purchasing health insurance, as we do for our homes and our vehicles, for catastrophic expenses, we refer all our medical costs to the government or to private insurers. Is it any wonder that costs have skyrocketed? That both public and private plans have sought to cut costs? When asked Tuesday night if medical care was a responsibility, a right or an entitlement, McCain chose the first and Obama chose the second. These differences are telling. Knowing the advantage of being in a preferred group, as a recipient of government care or tax-free employer care, has over being in business for yourself or being unemployed, McCain proposes that every citizen, and not just employers, be given a $5000 a year refundable credit so that they can get the best deal they can. Not only that, they would be free to buy health insurance anywhere, not just in their own state, as the situation is now. Obama, on the other hand, wants to make a problematic situation even worse by instituting a government benefit for all who desire it. This would crowd out the private market for health insurance, just as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have done for housing loans, making the profitability of private plans highly dubious. Obama tries to play down this inevitable consequence by insisting that people would still be free to purchase private plans. Ask Canadians if they have that freedom under socialized medicine. And he adds that those who keep their employer-based plans will be taxed more. What he doesn’t tell you is that employers will be able to pay their employees more in lieu of health-care coverage, but employees will pay more taxes only because they are unjustly penalized for making more money!

Although McCain has been sidetracked by "environmental" concerns in regards to oil drilling and alleged global warming, he has long endorsed the full range of affordable and practical alternatives to dependence on foreign oil. More recently, he has endorsed drilling off our coastlines so long as affected states concur. He knows that the most eligible alternative for power is nuclear energy, which even environmental "greens" admit is safe and clean. He wants to stop the flow of oil money to despotic regimes that aid and abet terrorist groups abroad who threaten us and our allies, and everybody else. He supports research and development but not wholesale subsidies to as-yet unproven technology. But Obama is famous for advocating pitifully small conservation measures such as keeping up air pressure in our tires and driving at slower speeds. He makes rhetorical gestures toward oil and nuclear development, but does not commit himself to it.

This is as good a place as any to take on the bugaboo of the greedy oil companies, which even McCain feels compelled to harp on. In the first place, they buy most of their oil from overseas, spend gigantic sums for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, attempt to make a profit for their shareholders and supply gasoline at the lowest possible price. Media reports of "huge" profits never mention the much greater costs incurred, nor the necessity to obtain the means for securing more oil in the future. It makes literally no sense to believe that oil companies deliberately jack up prices and thereby infuriate their customers. They are dependent largely on their foreign suppliers, inasmuch as Congress has forbidden offshore drilling for 30 years. There is no more public, recurring and palpable cost than the per gallon price of gasoline. We had it good for so many years we thought it could go on forever. Now the only sensible thing to do is drill for more, the sooner the better.

Say it ain't so, Sarah

I cringed when I heard Sarah Palin suggest that human activity might be to blame for so-called global warming in her ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson last week. The Republican VP nominee's claim instantly conjured up images of French President Nicolas Sarkozy breaking many of the pledges he boldly made during the presidential election campaign here in France in early 2007. As I watched Sarah Palin’s cut-and-thrust with the MSM (via the Internet here in France), I seriously wondered for one moment whether her remark was not yet another example of a politician saying one thing and doing another, once in office or on his or her way there.

Forgive my sensitivity. After all, we, American-inspired French conservatives, who have been gullible enough to believe that France might ever become anything other than a stronghold of socialism, have had our fair share of rude awakenings since the days of Turgot, Tocqueville, Jean-Baptiste Say, and Frederic Bastiat.

Consider the latest wakeup call. As candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy straight-facedly promised to reform France along clear-cut free-market principles. Granted, since then, he has cut some taxes in an effort to boost investment and stimulate growth and made moves to dispel the notion that the work ethic is a dirty word.

However, where are the cuts in welfare spending that should have gone hand in hand with the tax changes? Instead, the entitlement mentality is still the cultural norm, and President Sarkozy has been busy implementing his very own brand of Robin Hood economics, robbing hard-working, hard-saving, law-abiding citizens not only to pay for his Al Gore-certified green revolution but also to bribe loafers and welfare queens to get back to work:

** He has approved green taxes on anything from cars, home appliances, and flat-screen TVs to computers, number crunchers for school children and even plastic cutlery used in barbecues and other outdoor meals;

** He has “asked” Total, France’s biggest oil company, to make a $312-million contribution to the French Treasury to help those who can’t afford it pay for nest winter’s heating bills following last summer’s rise in oil prices;

** Worst of all, he has just slapped a new 1.1% new tax on capital gains and other investment to fund a back-to-work program, all in the name of solidarity, a code word for socialistic wealth transfers here in France.

The list goes on. Bottom line? While Sarkozy's approval ratings have been edging up, France’s GDP growth in this year’s second quarter plummeted to –0.3%. Another batch of taxes and France will technically be in a recession by next quarter.

So please, Mrs. Palin, however morale-boosting your selection as John McCain’s running mate might justifiably be, forget about man-made global what-do-you-call-it and let us hear you talk consistently about free enterprise, traditional values and strong national defense.

Let us see you walk the wholeheartedly conservative walk all the way to victory on Nov. 4 -- and from there to the Oval Office in 2012.