<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Nuclear-powered lawn mowers and socialist British newspapers</title>
	<link>http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/27/nuclear-powered-lawn-mowers-and-socialist-british-newspapers/</link>
	<description>Official Blog of California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:44:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kimball</title>
		<link>http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/27/nuclear-powered-lawn-mowers-and-socialist-british-newspapers/#comment-860</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kimball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:37:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/27/nuclear-powered-lawn-mowers-and-socialist-british-newspapers/#comment-860</guid>
		<description>My response of June 27, 2008 was too brief and the relevance to the Guardian's reference to the impossibility of achieving the goal set may not be clear.  

California made major contributions to the achievements of Boulder Dam, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Moon landings.  They were, in their times, much greater science, engineering, and construction tasks than converting California's stationary energy  requirements to nuclear power plant energy.  They were successfully carried out on time scales like what will be needed.

As DeVore says, “I see no other physical way we can meet our ambitious goals,” DeVore wrote.   Nuclear power is intrinsically clean, it is already less expensive than coal fired power plants.  DeVore probably did not take into account the Palo Verde power plants three reactors 300 miles east of his home when calculating his mower power.  A study of the local economic benefits of Palo Verde's operation indicates highly positive results are possible.  Even so, it is missing the claim for "carbon 'credits'" from the operation of its cooling towers as atmospheric carbon dioxide scrubbers.

The Guardian is partly right about the futility of many of the means advocated by global warming paranoids (word choice?).  Wind, solar, and biofuels are all counterproductive failures.  Nor will ill-considered government regulation help.  World economics will continue to increase the cost of our liquid fuels, diesel and gasoline, for which better substitutes have not been found.  Some changes in lifestyles and equipment will consequently occur.  Individual optimization as the country's founders designed the Constitution to facilitate, and economists, Hayek and Friedman have taught and explained is the best performing method of dealing with the social and economic complexity of society.  Any scheme which decreases productivity will be counterproductive to environmental conditions.

jlk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My response of June 27, 2008 was too brief and the relevance to the Guardian&#8217;s reference to the impossibility of achieving the goal set may not be clear.  </p>
<p>California made major contributions to the achievements of Boulder Dam, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Moon landings.  They were, in their times, much greater science, engineering, and construction tasks than converting California&#8217;s stationary energy  requirements to nuclear power plant energy.  They were successfully carried out on time scales like what will be needed.</p>
<p>As DeVore says, “I see no other physical way we can meet our ambitious goals,” DeVore wrote.   Nuclear power is intrinsically clean, it is already less expensive than coal fired power plants.  DeVore probably did not take into account the Palo Verde power plants three reactors 300 miles east of his home when calculating his mower power.  A study of the local economic benefits of Palo Verde&#8217;s operation indicates highly positive results are possible.  Even so, it is missing the claim for &#8220;carbon &#8216;credits&#8217;&#8221; from the operation of its cooling towers as atmospheric carbon dioxide scrubbers.</p>
<p>The Guardian is partly right about the futility of many of the means advocated by global warming paranoids (word choice?).  Wind, solar, and biofuels are all counterproductive failures.  Nor will ill-considered government regulation help.  World economics will continue to increase the cost of our liquid fuels, diesel and gasoline, for which better substitutes have not been found.  Some changes in lifestyles and equipment will consequently occur.  Individual optimization as the country&#8217;s founders designed the Constitution to facilitate, and economists, Hayek and Friedman have taught and explained is the best performing method of dealing with the social and economic complexity of society.  Any scheme which decreases productivity will be counterproductive to environmental conditions.</p>
<p>jlk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kimball</title>
		<link>http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/27/nuclear-powered-lawn-mowers-and-socialist-british-newspapers/#comment-846</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kimball</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 04:13:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/27/nuclear-powered-lawn-mowers-and-socialist-british-newspapers/#comment-846</guid>
		<description>ChuckDeVore, You are making progress.  The shame is that we can not imbue the government and the citizens with the urgency that this task demands. 

  There are approved nuclear power plant designs whose safety would be better than those now in operation.  If the government (governator) decided to throw off the shackles and tell industry that our public lands and preserves are for the general welfare of the people of the state and that nuclear power is the only way to future productivity, prosperity, and peace.  

If challenged and equitably rewarded, the industry could have a number of GW plants in operation in five years.  The task is considerably less daunting than Boulder Dam, the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Program.  

By the time the first spent fuel is removed from those reactors California could have it's own nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ChuckDeVore, You are making progress.  The shame is that we can not imbue the government and the citizens with the urgency that this task demands. </p>
<p>  There are approved nuclear power plant designs whose safety would be better than those now in operation.  If the government (governator) decided to throw off the shackles and tell industry that our public lands and preserves are for the general welfare of the people of the state and that nuclear power is the only way to future productivity, prosperity, and peace.  </p>
<p>If challenged and equitably rewarded, the industry could have a number of GW plants in operation in five years.  The task is considerably less daunting than Boulder Dam, the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Program.  </p>
<p>By the time the first spent fuel is removed from those reactors California could have it&#8217;s own nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
