Rev 01 Jan 2012
Without now reducing natural and human greenhouse emissions Earth’s average temperature shall exceed a level that is capable of sustaining human races. Without political change, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of modern man ends 2050-2099.
The stress of increased populations, increased energy use, and resulting increased temperatures is evident. Human factors can not change to accommodate necessary global warming temperature increase. The only temperature forcing effect that could make a difference is to expanded nuclear energy, as a replacement for coal, oil, and natural gas energy. “Renewable” energy has inadequate capacity, is unmanageable and is ineffective on the larger scale.
The greatest obstacles to maintaining an Earth temperature level that can sustain human life is the continuation of persistent anti-Vietnam-War and anti-nuclear politics. There are most certainly other global warming problems, but anti-nuclear politics is among the largest manageable obstacle.
This Blogger website provides the only documents that present an overall true image of global warming temperature increase and the politics that is obstructing solutions, PASS THIS WEBSITE ALONG. Please discuss with others and the news media as to their views on global warming temperature increase. The liberal media has stake in maintaining the proper image of left liberal Democrats while the conservative media is only starting to explore global warming. Ask your local politicians as to their opinions concerning global warming. Without help from news media, politicians, and public, too soon global warming temperature becomes committed to being unlivable.
It is only through increased public awareness that politicians will change the course of global warming. If there is no U.S. and German Energy Policy of 2012 that supports global warming temperature reduction, than Earth’s humans no longer exist 2050-2099.
There is no public plan to reduce global warming greenhouse gas that causes global warming temperature increase. Large industrialized nations within the EU and U.S. have removed more than 20% of their clean nuclear energies from national inventories in order to promote “renewable” energy and shut down of nuclear industries. That act shall destroy human races prior to 2099.
Nuclear Energy is the Only Energy Source That Has Necessary Clean Energy Capacity Capable of Reducing Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Nuclear energy has TENS OF THOUSANDS of person-years of very safe services with a proven capacity and sufficient base-load electricity. As of October 2011, there are 14,640 reactor-years of worldwide experience in producing civil nuclear power. There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone (Three Mile Island), the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment (Chernobyl), and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity (Fukushima). These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,640 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries. The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust. When compared to the damages done by coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear energy is very safe and a superior energy source.
Nuclear energy is low cost clean energy competition to “green, alternative, and renewable” energy. Therefore, to maintain their political monopoly over energy sectors and ongoing global warming corruption, EU-US anti-nuclear neo-communists eliminated and delayed construction of national nuclear energy sectors. U.S. anti nuclear protests seeks leadership power and acknowledgment. Government anti nuclear obstacles has resulted in few new constructed nuclear facilities for more than three decades. President Obama de-funded the Yucca Mountain nuclear geologic repository to continue the forced shutdown of the U.S. nuclear energy sector. U.S. nuclear energy sector provides more than 20% of U.S. firm energy. Obama also controls the politics of the powerful U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members’ regulations and rulings.
U.S. President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel elimination of national nuclear energy was to remove the nuclear competitor to their nation’s “green energy” renewables and permit continued corruption. Without nuclear energy, global warming greenhouse gas emission-thresholds greatly exceed interglacial “norms,” resulting in 2050-2099 human races destruction.
Dream the impossible. German environmentalists cheered at Germany's shutdown of its nuclear energy sector, apparently satisfied that the government will be able to scale up renewable energy sources and scale back electricity demand enough to compensate for the loss of the power plants, which produce a quarter of the nation’s electricity. Reference: IEA "Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker" 30 May 2011 LINK: http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959
The Washington Post (June 2011) describes Germany's announcement to close all nuclear reactors by 2022 as a “panicked overreaction,” noting that “Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table.” Germany until March 2011 obtained more than one quarter (28%) of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors. The country's operating nuclear power reactors, comprising 15% of installed capacity, 133 billion kWh net in 2010.
The German Green Party traces its origins to the student protest movement of the 1960s, the environmentalist movement of the 1970s, and the peace movement of the early 1980s. The focus of the environmentalist protests are anti nuclear power. The green Party movement is at German labor, businesses, and politicians, all of whom have enthusiastically endorsed nuclear use, particularly after the sharp rise in oil prices in 1973. Green Party of Germany in 1998 to 2005 formed a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD). In 2009 Christian Democratic Union party shares power with the pro-business Free Democrats. The new SPD-Free Democrats government in 2009 cancelled German nuclear phase-out, nuclear phase-in was on the table again. Troubles at nuclear plants in Japan triggered by an earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 buoyed Green Party numbers at the polls in German state elections later that month. Greens claimed their first state government as the senior partners in a coalition with the SPD. In 2011, the SPD-Green Party again implemented nuclear phase-out. In June 2011, a nuclear exit by 2022 became German law. With the ‘Nuclear Exit Law’ (or ‘Atomic-Exit Law’), Chancellor Merkel and her SPD-Green Party put into place the ending of all German reliance on nuclear energy. Germany's plan to shut all its nuclear power plants by 2022 will add up to 40 million tones of carbon dioxide emissions annually as the country turns to fossil fuels. There are no carbon dioxide emission estimates for the U.S. phase-out of nuclear facilities.
German think tank ‘Breakthrough Institute’ points out that “renewables” would have to generate an incredible/impossible 42.4% of German’s electricity in 2020 to compensate for displace nuclear. Large German costs have occurred due to phase-out of nuclear energy and introduction of “renewable” energy. Public opinion in Germany remains ambivalent and at present does not support building new nuclear plants.
Switzerland has five nuclear reactors generating 40% of its electricity. A national vote had confirmed nuclear energy as part of Switzerland's electricity mix. However, in June 2011 parliament resolved not to replace any reactors, and hence to phase out nuclear power by 2034. In the 1960s, it was evident that Swiss power demand would exceed the potential for supply from hydro sources, so utilities proposed building coal- and oil-fired plants. However, environmental groups and others strenuously opposed coal- and oil-fired plants based on compromising the hitherto clean power generation, so the government encouraged the utilities to plan for nuclear power. A ten-year moratorium on new nuclear plant construction occurred during a national referendum in 1990. Then in a unique 2003, Swiss voters firmly rejected two anti-nuclear proposals. November 2010, the Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate drew up definitive appraisals for the Swiss Federal Office of Energy saying that three sites are suitable for building new reactors. Following a decision by cabinet not to replace the country's nuclear power plants, the national Council on 7 June 2011 voted to endorse nuclear energy until 2034. The team of international nuclear safety experts 02 Dec 2011 completed a two-week International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) review of the regulatory framework for nuclear safety in Switzerland. The Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission noted good practices in the Swiss system and also made recommendations for the nation's nuclear regulatory authority, the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI). A new government taking office December 2011 is to produce a new energy policy on nuclear power by 2013 and submit it to parliament. Until then the future of nuclear power remains uncertain.
If China wants to reach the heights of US gross domestic product (GDP), it must generate much more electricity than is currently produced. This is a massive challenge for everyone working in China’s electricity-generation sector. China's electric energy increase needs to come from nuclear energy. A one-gigawatt nuclear-power plant needs only 20 to 30 tonnes of fuel a year. However, a coal plant of the same generating capacity (one-GW) burns two to three million tonnes of coal annually – about 100 train-car loads worth a day. That coal plant produces 200,000 tonnes of coal ash waste a year, as well as releasing into the atmosphere large quantities of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates, causing increased global warming and acid rain and ocean acidification. The contribution of nuclear power to greenhouse-gas emissions, meanwhile, is very small: UN Environment Programme figures from 2000 estimate total emissions of carbon-dioxide equivalent for nuclear power are around 39 grams per kilowatt-hour. China will never meet its economic goals by using renewable energy. As a real need vs. benefits, renewable energy is insignificant and counter productive.
By claiming that nuclear “waste” disposal remains a problem, the anti nuclear neo communists continue justifying their self-generated nuclear waste problem. There have been no verifiable nuclear “waste” problems identified. The U.S. nuclear energy sector needs more long-term nuclear repositories. Only anti-nuclear, communists, and self-serving politicians have problems with geologic nuclear repositories. President Obama refuses to release the funds and authorizations necessary to complete opening the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository. German’s Green Party also has a geologic repository that they refuse to permit completion.
Without Germany and U.S. participation the human races no longer continues to exist this century. International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on May 2011 that global energy-related carbon emissions last year were the highest ever, and that the world is far off track if it wants to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, after which the results could be very dangerous.
Autocratic U.S. White House has control over news media reporting and controls liberal media maintains stakes in left Democrat points of view. When discussing energy or global warming, U.S. and European news media no longer identify the topics. More than 20% of U.S. and German energy sector no longer exists within Obama’s nation and within Germany. Resulting from news media complacency, Obama-Merkel anti-nuclear political partnership has assured that surviving the coming global warming catastrophe has moved from “slim chance” to “no chance” of survival.
The first four Chinese AP1000 reactors build are from modules fabricated adjacent to each site. The timeline is 50 months (4.2 years) from first concrete to fuel loading, and then six months to grid connection, with first costs expected to reduce significantly for the following units. The cost of the first four built is expected to be less than $2000/kW of rated capacity and reducing to $1600/kW for further units. Contrasting Chinese construction cost examples of U.S. nuclear units undergoing the permit process that include other charges are estimated at around $8,000 to $10,000/kW of rated capacity and an additional financing charges and project contingencies, at $5,335/kW. American huge costs in the nuclear industry result from political overhead.
To lift people from poverty, the energy supply problem must provide renewable nuclear power or hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is site limited and expensive to build. Nuclear power is still unnecessarily expensive. Wind and solar power (both with batteries) and solar cookers are good alternative energy sources for rural poor locations. If Obama and Merkel carry on with “green energy” renewables, there will be completely catastrophic increases in energy prices while global warming temperature continues to increase.
Go to Blogger POLITICS 2/4
Without now reducing natural and human greenhouse emissions Earth’s average temperature shall exceed a level that is capable of sustaining human races. Without political change, the one hundred and sixty thousand year journey of modern man ends 2050-2099.
The stress of increased populations, increased energy use, and resulting increased temperatures is evident. Human factors can not change to accommodate necessary global warming temperature increase. The only temperature forcing effect that could make a difference is to expanded nuclear energy, as a replacement for coal, oil, and natural gas energy. “Renewable” energy has inadequate capacity, is unmanageable and is ineffective on the larger scale.
The greatest obstacles to maintaining an Earth temperature level that can sustain human life is the continuation of persistent anti-Vietnam-War and anti-nuclear politics. There are most certainly other global warming problems, but anti-nuclear politics is among the largest manageable obstacle.
This Blogger website provides the only documents that present an overall true image of global warming temperature increase and the politics that is obstructing solutions, PASS THIS WEBSITE ALONG. Please discuss with others and the news media as to their views on global warming temperature increase. The liberal media has stake in maintaining the proper image of left liberal Democrats while the conservative media is only starting to explore global warming. Ask your local politicians as to their opinions concerning global warming. Without help from news media, politicians, and public, too soon global warming temperature becomes committed to being unlivable.
It is only through increased public awareness that politicians will change the course of global warming. If there is no U.S. and German Energy Policy of 2012 that supports global warming temperature reduction, than Earth’s humans no longer exist 2050-2099.
There is no public plan to reduce global warming greenhouse gas that causes global warming temperature increase. Large industrialized nations within the EU and U.S. have removed more than 20% of their clean nuclear energies from national inventories in order to promote “renewable” energy and shut down of nuclear industries. That act shall destroy human races prior to 2099.
Nuclear Energy is the Only Energy Source That Has Necessary Clean Energy Capacity Capable of Reducing Human Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Nuclear energy has TENS OF THOUSANDS of person-years of very safe services with a proven capacity and sufficient base-load electricity. As of October 2011, there are 14,640 reactor-years of worldwide experience in producing civil nuclear power. There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone (Three Mile Island), the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment (Chernobyl), and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity (Fukushima). These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,640 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries. The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust. When compared to the damages done by coal, oil, and natural gas, nuclear energy is very safe and a superior energy source.
Nuclear energy is low cost clean energy competition to “green, alternative, and renewable” energy. Therefore, to maintain their political monopoly over energy sectors and ongoing global warming corruption, EU-US anti-nuclear neo-communists eliminated and delayed construction of national nuclear energy sectors. U.S. anti nuclear protests seeks leadership power and acknowledgment. Government anti nuclear obstacles has resulted in few new constructed nuclear facilities for more than three decades. President Obama de-funded the Yucca Mountain nuclear geologic repository to continue the forced shutdown of the U.S. nuclear energy sector. U.S. nuclear energy sector provides more than 20% of U.S. firm energy. Obama also controls the politics of the powerful U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) members’ regulations and rulings.
U.S. President Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel elimination of national nuclear energy was to remove the nuclear competitor to their nation’s “green energy” renewables and permit continued corruption. Without nuclear energy, global warming greenhouse gas emission-thresholds greatly exceed interglacial “norms,” resulting in 2050-2099 human races destruction.
Dream the impossible. German environmentalists cheered at Germany's shutdown of its nuclear energy sector, apparently satisfied that the government will be able to scale up renewable energy sources and scale back electricity demand enough to compensate for the loss of the power plants, which produce a quarter of the nation’s electricity. Reference: IEA "Prospect of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2ºC is getting bleaker" 30 May 2011 LINK: http://www.iea.org/index_info.asp?id=1959
The Washington Post (June 2011) describes Germany's announcement to close all nuclear reactors by 2022 as a “panicked overreaction,” noting that “Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table.” Germany until March 2011 obtained more than one quarter (28%) of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors. The country's operating nuclear power reactors, comprising 15% of installed capacity, 133 billion kWh net in 2010.
The German Green Party traces its origins to the student protest movement of the 1960s, the environmentalist movement of the 1970s, and the peace movement of the early 1980s. The focus of the environmentalist protests are anti nuclear power. The green Party movement is at German labor, businesses, and politicians, all of whom have enthusiastically endorsed nuclear use, particularly after the sharp rise in oil prices in 1973. Green Party of Germany in 1998 to 2005 formed a coalition government with the Social Democratic Party (SPD). In 2009 Christian Democratic Union party shares power with the pro-business Free Democrats. The new SPD-Free Democrats government in 2009 cancelled German nuclear phase-out, nuclear phase-in was on the table again. Troubles at nuclear plants in Japan triggered by an earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 buoyed Green Party numbers at the polls in German state elections later that month. Greens claimed their first state government as the senior partners in a coalition with the SPD. In 2011, the SPD-Green Party again implemented nuclear phase-out. In June 2011, a nuclear exit by 2022 became German law. With the ‘Nuclear Exit Law’ (or ‘Atomic-Exit Law’), Chancellor Merkel and her SPD-Green Party put into place the ending of all German reliance on nuclear energy. Germany's plan to shut all its nuclear power plants by 2022 will add up to 40 million tones of carbon dioxide emissions annually as the country turns to fossil fuels. There are no carbon dioxide emission estimates for the U.S. phase-out of nuclear facilities.
German think tank ‘Breakthrough Institute’ points out that “renewables” would have to generate an incredible/impossible 42.4% of German’s electricity in 2020 to compensate for displace nuclear. Large German costs have occurred due to phase-out of nuclear energy and introduction of “renewable” energy. Public opinion in Germany remains ambivalent and at present does not support building new nuclear plants.
Switzerland has five nuclear reactors generating 40% of its electricity. A national vote had confirmed nuclear energy as part of Switzerland's electricity mix. However, in June 2011 parliament resolved not to replace any reactors, and hence to phase out nuclear power by 2034. In the 1960s, it was evident that Swiss power demand would exceed the potential for supply from hydro sources, so utilities proposed building coal- and oil-fired plants. However, environmental groups and others strenuously opposed coal- and oil-fired plants based on compromising the hitherto clean power generation, so the government encouraged the utilities to plan for nuclear power. A ten-year moratorium on new nuclear plant construction occurred during a national referendum in 1990. Then in a unique 2003, Swiss voters firmly rejected two anti-nuclear proposals. November 2010, the Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate drew up definitive appraisals for the Swiss Federal Office of Energy saying that three sites are suitable for building new reactors. Following a decision by cabinet not to replace the country's nuclear power plants, the national Council on 7 June 2011 voted to endorse nuclear energy until 2034. The team of international nuclear safety experts 02 Dec 2011 completed a two-week International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) review of the regulatory framework for nuclear safety in Switzerland. The Integrated Regulatory Review Service (IRRS) mission noted good practices in the Swiss system and also made recommendations for the nation's nuclear regulatory authority, the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate (ENSI). A new government taking office December 2011 is to produce a new energy policy on nuclear power by 2013 and submit it to parliament. Until then the future of nuclear power remains uncertain.
If China wants to reach the heights of US gross domestic product (GDP), it must generate much more electricity than is currently produced. This is a massive challenge for everyone working in China’s electricity-generation sector. China's electric energy increase needs to come from nuclear energy. A one-gigawatt nuclear-power plant needs only 20 to 30 tonnes of fuel a year. However, a coal plant of the same generating capacity (one-GW) burns two to three million tonnes of coal annually – about 100 train-car loads worth a day. That coal plant produces 200,000 tonnes of coal ash waste a year, as well as releasing into the atmosphere large quantities of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulates, causing increased global warming and acid rain and ocean acidification. The contribution of nuclear power to greenhouse-gas emissions, meanwhile, is very small: UN Environment Programme figures from 2000 estimate total emissions of carbon-dioxide equivalent for nuclear power are around 39 grams per kilowatt-hour. China will never meet its economic goals by using renewable energy. As a real need vs. benefits, renewable energy is insignificant and counter productive.
By claiming that nuclear “waste” disposal remains a problem, the anti nuclear neo communists continue justifying their self-generated nuclear waste problem. There have been no verifiable nuclear “waste” problems identified. The U.S. nuclear energy sector needs more long-term nuclear repositories. Only anti-nuclear, communists, and self-serving politicians have problems with geologic nuclear repositories. President Obama refuses to release the funds and authorizations necessary to complete opening the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository. German’s Green Party also has a geologic repository that they refuse to permit completion.
Without Germany and U.S. participation the human races no longer continues to exist this century. International Energy Agency (IEA) reported on May 2011 that global energy-related carbon emissions last year were the highest ever, and that the world is far off track if it wants to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, after which the results could be very dangerous.
Autocratic U.S. White House has control over news media reporting and controls liberal media maintains stakes in left Democrat points of view. When discussing energy or global warming, U.S. and European news media no longer identify the topics. More than 20% of U.S. and German energy sector no longer exists within Obama’s nation and within Germany. Resulting from news media complacency, Obama-Merkel anti-nuclear political partnership has assured that surviving the coming global warming catastrophe has moved from “slim chance” to “no chance” of survival.
The first four Chinese AP1000 reactors build are from modules fabricated adjacent to each site. The timeline is 50 months (4.2 years) from first concrete to fuel loading, and then six months to grid connection, with first costs expected to reduce significantly for the following units. The cost of the first four built is expected to be less than $2000/kW of rated capacity and reducing to $1600/kW for further units. Contrasting Chinese construction cost examples of U.S. nuclear units undergoing the permit process that include other charges are estimated at around $8,000 to $10,000/kW of rated capacity and an additional financing charges and project contingencies, at $5,335/kW. American huge costs in the nuclear industry result from political overhead.
To lift people from poverty, the energy supply problem must provide renewable nuclear power or hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power is site limited and expensive to build. Nuclear power is still unnecessarily expensive. Wind and solar power (both with batteries) and solar cookers are good alternative energy sources for rural poor locations. If Obama and Merkel carry on with “green energy” renewables, there will be completely catastrophic increases in energy prices while global warming temperature continues to increase.
Go to Blogger POLITICS 2/4
