As prices for crude oil continue to surge, millions of folks are spending more time watching their investments than their own children.
To this I say, tisk tisk.
For every red carpet celebrity, there's a yet-to-be-star who's simply biding their time, waiting for their chance at glory...
And that's where your eyes should be.
While our nation's eyes are fixed on Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress launches a hidden assault right here in the homeland...
Against your IRAs and 401(k)s.
You can surrender and lose everything - or make this "guerilla wealth" move and retire rich, with your assets intact.
Click here to learn more
Instead of staring at your computer monitor, watching every tick in the price of oil, you should be affixing your gaze at the newest under-the-radar heavyweight: nuclear energy.
I realize most people haven't given nuclear energy a second thought since the near-disaster at Three Mile Island 31 years ago...
But as all things change, so has nuclear energy. Most people just don't know it.
First, let me set the record straight; nuclear energy is absolutely safer than its alternatives.
According to an article from the Australian online newspaper The Age:
... In proportion to the amount of power produced, power stations fuelled by coal and oil or driven by hydro power had caused 1,000 times as many deaths as nuclear stations, and gas-fired stations had caused 15 times as many casualties as nuclear ones.
Second, and most importantly, nuclear energy is our future. And I'm not the only one who feels this way. In fact every major government in the world says so.
China has 20 nuclear power reactors under construction as I write this, with plans to increase their nuclear capacity six-fold over the next decade.
There will be 12 such reactors built in India over the next seven years.
Plans to build a total of 150 nuclear reactors across East and South Asia as a whole are currently in the works.
This fury of nuclear construction abroad certainly hasn't been lost on President Barack Obama... As energy demand in the United States soars, and is estimated to increase even more — 23% over the next twenty years, creating a new, massive source of energy has become top priority.
In his State of the Union address, Obama called for dramatically increased nuclear reactor construction:
[W]e need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.
Shortly thereafter, he tripled the amount of loan guarantees for nuclear power to $54 billion in his budget request. He's practically hemorrhaging money to get nuclear energy in place as soon as possible.
In fact, $8.33 billion in loan guarantees has already been handed out for two new nuclear reactors to be built in Burke, Georgia.
So, why is nuclear energy the chosen one?
Well, put simply, it has the greatest potential of all the clean alternatives out there. Few solutions, if any, hold a candle to nuclear.
In a case study done on a 500-megawatt nuclear power plant, it was found that 250,000 homes could be powered for just several pounds of waste...
At the same time, that nuclear plant would emit 4.1 million less tons of CO2 over the course of a single year than would a coal-fired plant.
The environmental benefits are simply too huge to sweep under the rug.
The best part is we're not exactly inexperienced when it comes to nuclear energy, either. So we wouldn't be starting from scratch. In 1980, nuclear production was around 251 billion kWh (11% of our country's electricity generation). As recently as 2008, that figure had risen to 809 billion kWh (20% of generation).
But now, efforts to get nuclear far more integrated are underway as the U.S. tries to catch countries like France, China, and Russia...
And, as I mentioned, it's the absolute centerpiece of Obama's current objectives.
As reported by the Washington Post, Obama recently stated: "If we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we're going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them. We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas instead of here in the United States of America. And that's not a future that I accept."
The two Georgia plants that have already been commissioned are expected, according to the Department of Energy, to produce 3,500 on-site jobs and 800 permanent jobs once construction is complete.
Not only that, but as the National Association of Manufacturers says, a single new nuclear power plant can add $500 million annually to the economy.
The numbers are just too juicy to resist. And as a new age of nuclear energy asserts itself in the United States, we have a lot to look forward to...
In the words of our President, this is "only the beginning."
Call it like you see it,
Nick
673 Years Worth of Oil!
Thanks to a much needed breakthrough, scientists recently unlocked the largest oil deposits on Earth!
... More than 11 Saudi Arabia's worth - right in North America!
Before the mainstream press catches wind and blows certain share prices sky-high, find out how you could be among the first to take advantage of this historic money-making situation!
Click here to find out more.
Subscribe to
Could you weight in on the debate over whether or not there is enough quality uranium around to fuel all of these new nuclear reactors. The estimates floating around seem highly contradictory. I am assuming that China plans to supply its reactors with domestic uranium production, but what about India? Can the U.S. get enough uranium mining going for plants we may want to build.
Thanks, Patrick Murphy
A Nuclear power plant is by far the most expensive to build-up to $10 billion and increasing daily.
There is not one source of financing for these plants-unless all the cost and risk is guaranteed by the government. No banks, no high-risk hedge funds, no public companies, no bonds- will touch these things without full guarantees-including from all future accidents, terrorism or cost overruns. No other energy source requires these guarantees.
The waste, risk, cost and time needed to build these plants do not justify their use.
With all the other sources we have available in the US-solar, wind, natural gas--why would we even think of making these high-risk, high-cost plants a part of the future energy mix. Just do one calculation--the amount of electricity generated by a $10 billion solar installation, or $10 billion in wind turbines, or $10 billion in natural gas driven plants-compared to a $10 billion nuclear plant--and you will have to agree that nuclear is not the answer.
Nuclear power is absurdly costly, highly risky, leaves a huge amount of radioactive waste for generations to come, and has a relatively short life span (40 years).
Be objective about this and you will conclude nuclear isn't the answer.
If you want to see why reprocessing does not solve the waste problem in France or anywhere read tinyurl.com/frenchmyth
Everyone and their dog has a plan for how to get the US to a climate friendly solution to the nations energy problem without pricy new reactors - google has one, T. Boone Pickens has one, Al Gore has one, RMI has a good one (see oilendgame.com) and of course every green group has one.
140K people protested nuclear over the last few days.
The next serious accident in the west will end this silly discussion for another decade, til the well funded nuclear lobby can by off more politicians and media outlets.
Readers would be well advised to read "The World Wihtout Us" by Alan Weisman before getting too excited about Nuclear.
Readers would be well advised to read "The World Wihtout Us" by Alan Weisman before getting too excited about Nuclear.
How about a 50' trawler powered-up for 20 years? I have friends in England who have lived for forty years within a mile of a nuclear plant. Never had an anxious moment. However, a Babcock and Wilcox engineer once told me that all personnel in the plant must be of high caliber and properly trained. Even the guys who change the light bulbs and sweeps the floor. He said unions are the obstacle to correct staff discipline. Naval type discipine is necessary.
If you try to buy nuclear insurance you won't find any. It's nonexistant. You'll line up behind all the FEMA victims from Katrina that are still uncompensated, so you can get your 0.001 cents to every dollar you'll be claiming.
Did you ever hear about Yucca Mountain, and its current fate? Have we resolved what to do with all the civilian N waste that exists (all 72,000 metric tons that are sitting in swimming pools next to every reactor in the US?).
And what about the design life of each reactor that was originally engineered and scrupulously approved at 30 years per facility, only to be approved (if not miraculously) by another 20-30 years? There's no such thing as metal or concrete fatigue in a containment vessel, is there? No way! It just doesn't happen...or does it?