<div>Somehow the word "year" was missing from the following post, in the first sentence, which should read "after over a 10 <em>year </em>hiatus."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As to the discussion regarding Palin, I hope she is given a "platform" at the U of I, where she attended university, to enlighten the hoi polloi, when she is not in political office, and can lecture as a private citizen. I hope her efforts in private life, if she lectures, writes etc. to promote so called "conservative" values, or the Republican party, are as strenuous and widespread as possible. She will be a gold mine for the analytical skills of sophisticated political pundits who will guard the public from her current and potential position as a puppet of the Machiavellian economic/political powers who promote her role as a propaganda spokesperson or politician, for their gain. The Republican party should hope she disappears from public life. She is too naive, sincere, and heartfelt, lacking in the cynical sophistication to be truly evil while pretending to be good, which is sometimes a requirement for those seeking political office. I don't perceive Palin as nearly as corrupt as some of her detractors. I think she actually believes in what she is saying ("Our troops sent to do God's will"), and is potentially very dangerous, if gaining national office and power, which I doubt will ever happen. She should be offered the greatest compassion, given she has been/will be manipulated by political and economic interests who have or will attempt to exploit her public image and appeal.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>In short, I feel sorry for her. Even if she has a big bucks book deal, or will make millions lecturing. Mark 8:36 "What profit will a person have if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/11/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Moffett</b> <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>New nuclear power plants are now planned in the US after over a 10 hiatus on expansion of nuclear power. Plans for a new plant in Ohio were publicly announced just last month, with governor Strickland, US Senator Voinovich, and representatives of Duke Energy (article lower down) in attendance. It appears the opponents of nuclear power are not being successful in blocking future development of nuclear energy. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As far as oil, continuing large scale US dependence on oil is a prescription for economic disaster, even putting aside the risks of CO2 emissions and climate change. It is a finite resource in a world of expanding demand. T. Boone Pickens is correct to push for immediate plans to lower oil energy use in the US by expanding natural gas use as a transportation fuel, and solar and wind to replace the natural gas electric generation (though he does not appear to promote nuclear energy as much as I would expect). Expanding domestic oil supplies will not fully address the problem, given the extent of the dependence of the US economy on oil, unless the oil shales in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado (the largest in the world!) can be affordably developed large scale Of course, even if so, climate change and ecosystem preservation indicates this is an unwise path:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info on oil shales:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm" target="_blank">http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the <strong>Green River Formation</strong>, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of <strong>800 billion barrels</strong> of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. </div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Info on applications for new nuclear power plants in the US:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html" target="_blank">http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>As of March 31, 2008, the NRC has received 9 COL applications and is currently reviewing them.</div>
<div>--------------- </div>
<div>Info on planned nuclear power plant in Ohio:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/19/nuke19.ART_ART_06-19-09_A1_7CE7OOA.html" target="_blank">http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/06/19/nuke19.ART_ART_06-19-09_A1_7CE7OOA.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Power boost for Ohio</div>
<div> </div>
<div>$10 billion nuclear plant brings promise of jobs 'renaissance' </div>
<div>Friday, June 19, 2009 3:07 AM </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="e" id="q_1226bce0f8dac0a4_1">
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/10/09, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com" target="_blank">bear@moscow.com</a></b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com" target="_blank">bear@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ah yes Kai, but now you're discriminating against those who's religion<br>forbids consumption of alcohol! But I get your point and agree. There is<br>
no way 100% of the peoples of the earth will be happy with what ever<br>source is used. And if we stop using oil based energy, what happens to the<br>countries that only have oil as a natural resource? There is no easy<br>
solution.<br><br><br>Wayne<br><br><br>> It doesn't matter what form of energy generation we use, somebody will<br>> always oppose it.<br>><br>> Wind: Ugly towers that chop up birds.<br>> Nuclear: We'll all glow in the dark<br>
> Dams: Fish die<br>> Tidal: More fish die, and sea mammals might get tangled in cabling and die<br>> Solar: Only works half the day, in a small part of the world and takes up<br>> a lot of space in deserts, destroying habitat.<br>
> Burning anything: Used emit pollution, now emit greenhouse gasses<br>> Thermal: Good in a few, limited places. would work in Hawai'i, especially<br>> on the Big Island, but it's a religious no-no, so it was a no-go.<br>
><br>> The solution to the problem is small batch whiskey.<br>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> From: Ted Moffett<br>> To: Paul Rumelhart<br>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020<br>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:31 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy<br>> SecretaryChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy<br>><br>><br>> The acidification of the oceans (scientific studies on this issue given<br>
> lower down) resulting from the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2<br>> humanity has dumped into the atmosphere is a significant pollution<br>> problem that is predicted to have serious negative impacts on marine<br>
> organisms and ecosystems that will effect human civilization. This<br>> problem alone is good reason to lower CO2 emissions. Of course the<br>> physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas increasing atmospheric temperature is<br>
> well established science, that is questioned by implementing strategies<br>> of skepticism that can undermine many well established theories in<br>> science, strategies that are employed vigorously by those with an agenda<br>
> to block action to address anthropogenic climate change.<br>><br>> 4th generation fast or breeder reactor nuclear power plants could be<br>> built by the dozens in the US to replace coal fired plants. Coal has<br>
> more potential as a source of CO2 emissions than oil (read NASA's James<br>> Hansen's presentation on this issue given lower down). Even if we<br>> totally replaced oil as an energy source with alternatives (a good idea<br>
> if for no other reason than to save oil for its value as a product<br>> generating resource<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.energy4me.org/questions/products_from_oil.htm" target="_blank">http://www.energy4me.org/questions/products_from_oil.htm</a> ), the abundant<br>
> coal reserves of the US, the largest of any nation, will remain cheap<br>> and tempting for energy .<br>><br>> There should be a moratorium on new coal fired plants that do not<br>> sequester CO2 (which is currently not a proven technology that is<br>
> affordable and practical for wide scale implementation); and nuclear<br>> offers a replacement electricity generation technology that can be sited<br>> where the energy is needed, in areas with little wind or limited solar,<br>
> that is base load power, and that does not impact agriculture or<br>> ecosystems in the way biofuels can. I'm not sure there is any other<br>> energy technology that is practical and available that can offer all the<br>
> advantages of 4th generation nuclear reactors, while lowering CO2<br>> emissions. Maybe deep drilling for geothermal to generate power where<br>> geothermal is not close to the Earth's surface, but I am uncertain if<br>
> this technology will be practical. If it is practical, I wonder why<br>> this technology is not being aggressively developed?<br>><br>> It is ironic and hypocritical for many in the environmental movement to<br>
> oppose nuclear power, while they turn on their lights at home powered by<br>> coal fired plants that have and are inflicting more environmental damage<br>> and causing more death and disease than nuclear power.<br>
><br>> The opposition to nuclear power is in part a result of its association<br>> with nuclear weapons testing, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the threat of<br>> nuclear war. The few significant nuclear power plant accidents<br>
> (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island), that are a result of inferior design,<br>> have put the public at far less risk than coal fired plants, which cause<br>> the premature death of tens of thousands annually from respiratory<br>
> disease and other impacts, and pollute lakes and rivers with mercury<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5433" target="_blank">http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=5433</a> . If humanity was<br>
> operating in a sane manner, we would be using nuclear power much more<br>> instead of coal, and never have developed nuclear weapons much less used<br>> them against civilian targets.<br>><br>> A case for nuclear power is presented in the following presentation by<br>
> NASA's climate scientist James Hansen, that addresses many of the common<br>> objections to nuclear power:<br>><br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20080804_TripReport.pdf</a><br>
> -------------------<br>> Ted Moffett<br>> -------------------<br>> NOAA article on results of study of ocean acidification:<br>><br>> International Scientists Find ‘Acidified’ Water on the Continental Shelf<br>
> from Canada to Mexico<br>><br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080522_oceanacid.html" target="_blank">http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080522_oceanacid.html</a><br>
><br>> "Acidification of the Earth's ocean water could have far-reaching<br>> impacts on<br>> the health of our near-shore environment, and on the sustainability of<br>> ecosystems that support human populations through nourishment and jobs,"<br>
> said Richard W. Spinrad, NOAA assistant administrator for oceanic and<br>> atmospheric research.<br>><br>> “Our findings represent the first evidence that a large section of the<br>> North<br>> American continental shelf is seasonally impacted by ocean<br>
> acidification,”<br>> said Feely. “This means that ocean acidification may be seriously<br>> impacting<br>> marine life on our continental shelf right now.”<br>> The findings will be published May 22 in the online journal *Science<br>
> Express<br>> *. “Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive ‘Acidified’ Water onto the<br>> Continental Shelf” was written by Richard A. Feely and Christopher<br>> Sabine,<br>> ---------------<br>> Science journal article on ocean acidification:<br>
><br>> Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification<br>><br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/5857/1737</a><br>
><br>> From article above:<br>><br>> Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is expected to exceed 500 parts<br>> per million and global temperatures to rise by at least 2°C by 2050 to<br>> 2100, values that significantly exceed those of at least the past<br>
> 420,000 years during which most extant marine organisms evolved. Under<br>> conditions expected in the 21st century, global warming and ocean<br>> acidification will compromise carbonate accretion, with corals becoming<br>
> increasingly rare on reef systems. The result will be less diverse reef<br>> communities and carbonate reef structures that fail to be maintained.<br>> Climate change also exacerbates local stresses from declining water<br>
> quality and overexploitation of key species, driving reefs increasingly<br>> toward the tipping point for functional collapse. This review presents<br>> future scenarios for coral reefs that predict increasingly serious<br>
> consequences for reef-associated fisheries, tourism, coastal protection,<br>> and people. ---------------<br>><br>><br>> On 7/9/09, Paul Rumelhart <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>> I would like to amend my statement to say that we should invest in any<br>> other type of *non fossil fuel* energy that we can find. I think we<br>> should get off of oil as much as possible as quickly as possible for a<br>
> variety of reasons, mostly politics, the dangers to our economy of<br>> being<br>> dependent upon oil when peak oil hits, and pollution concerns<br>> (including<br>> CO2 if global warming is indeed happening).<br>
><br>> Paul<br>><br>> lfalen wrote:<br>> > Paul is right. We should pursue all avenues is the search for<br>> alternative energy and at the same time develop all sources of oil<br>> where it is economically feasible.<br>
> > Roger<br>> > -----Original message-----<br>> > From: Paul Rumelhart <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>
> > Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:57:59 -0700<br>> > To: Tom Hansen <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a><br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy<br>
> Secretary ChuAbout the Future of Nuclear Energy<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >> I'm afraid I don't have the authority to speak for France.<br>> >><br>> >> I think we should create more base energy with more nuclear plants,<br>
> and *also* invest in wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave<br>> power, and any other type of power we can find. We're going to<br>> need the energy.<br>> >><br>> >> Paul<br>
> >><br>> >> --- On Wed, 7/8/09, Tom Hansen <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a>> wrote:<br>> >><br>
> >> From: Tom Hansen <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com" target="_blank">thansen@moscow.com</a>><br>> >> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Idaho Governor Otter Asks US Energy<br>
> Secretary Chu About the Future of Nuclear Energy<br>> >> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>><br>
> >> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>>, "Ted Moffett"<br>
> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br>> >> Date: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 2:34 PM<br>> >><br>
> >> Paul Rumelhart stated:<br>> >><br>> >> " . . . the half-life of the waste by-products would be reduced to<br>> decades<br>> >> instead of thousands of years. The waste is more manageable . . .<br>
> "<br>> >><br>> >> That certainly explains why France wants to dump their nuclear<br>> waste right<br>> >> here in Idaho, instead of Nevada where the locals are up in arms<br>
> over<br>> >> their current pile of "manageable" nuclear waste, or at home in<br>> France<br>> >> where . . . uh . . . uh . . . why isn't France securing their own<br>> nuclear<br>
> >> waste, Paul?<br>> >><br>> >> Why not create energy with windpower . . .<br>> >><br>> >> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.windpowerexpo.org/" target="_blank">http://www.windpowerexpo.org/</a><br>
> >><br>> >> The waste produced by windpower is far more manageable, probably<br>> because<br>> >> there isn't any.<br>> >><br>> >> And, besides, this gives me an opportunity to share my favorite<br>
> song from<br>> >> "Paint Your Wagon" with y'all . . .<br>> >><br>> >> "They Call the Wind Maria"<br>> >> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.tomandrodna.com/Songs/Wind_Maria.mp3" target="_blank">http://www.TomandRodna.com/Songs/Wind_Maria.mp3</a><br>
> >><br>> >> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>> >><br>> >> Tom Hansen<br>> >> Moscow, Idaho<br>> >><br>> >> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to<br>
> change<br>> >> and the Realist adjusts his sails."<br>> >><br>> >> - Unknown<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>
> ><br>> ><br>><br>><br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>><br>><br>> =======================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> ==============================================================================================================<br>
> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>> =======================================================<br>
<br><br></blockquote></div><br></span></div></blockquote></div><br>