OPINION

Keven Ann:

Other than your calls to raise taxes taxes in the middle of a recession, the points you outline are encouraging to see from the DMN.

There is no reason why we can't adopt standard-design nuclear power plants like France does. We should follow their lead by streamlining the permit process, using off-the-shelf designs, and recycling nuclear waste. If we followed the successful French model, dependence on polluting coal would be a bad memory within 10 years.

http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2053355

The problem is convincing the Democrat base of environmental extremists that this is a good idea. Science doesn't matter to these people.

"Science doesn't matter to these people".

Did you miss CPAC, Michael?

What matters to "these people" is what to do with the waste. From THE BEGINNING, France made recycling used fuel central to their program.

Can oui?

in addition to the scientific component, and the waster issue, there is the financial one.

If nuclear is such a great deal, business would be doing it -- and to date they have declined without MASSIVE government guaranties. I am not sure I want to go down that road in these times.

@jmac

"What matters to "these people" is what to do with the waste. From THE BEGINNING, France made recycling used fuel central to their program."

As should we. Much of the spent waste we have now can be recycled.

Ah. And now comes into play "your people"

Regulations? Oversight? Or is $$ and profit the bottom line?

jmac, the insistence on the "either, or" is the problem.

The latest generation of nuclear plants actually use more of the uranium. Thus, they actually produce less waste which should make recycling even easier.

The latest generation of nuclear plants actually use more of the uranium. Thus, they actually produce less waste which should make recycling even easier.

The latest generation of nuclear plants actually use more of the uranium. Thus, they actually produce less waste which should make recycling even easier.

@jmac

"Regulations? Oversight? Or is $$ and profit the bottom line?"

Intelligent regulations and oversight based on science, not fear-mongering.

We do not have that kind of nuclear regulatory system in the United States -- that's why nuclear power plants are so expensive to build.

Rick Perry has asked Dallas County Community College to cut its budget for the next two years by 10%, or $10 million. The current reduction plan means that the school has to cut back on hiring part-time professors like me, despite having record enrollment numbers. Richland College is currently 12% over last year's enrollment numbers, but many students will be turned away and professors will go without their usual classes. Since my primary income is teaching classes, I don't know how my family is going to eat come next fall. Good thing Perry refused federal money so he could posture for voters.

The state of Illinois has apparently hit the rocks and the wreckage is washing up in the surf. Here is some ideas on how THEY might deal with their deficit:

"The Civic Federation recommends that the state income tax be increased from 3 percent to 5 percent for individuals, that retirees' pension and Social Security checks be taxed for the first time at the same rate as workers' paychecks, and the tax on cigarettes be raised by another $1 per pack. The group also favors getting rid of $181 million in corporate tax breaks."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/maxedout/2062132,CST-NWS-doomsday22.article

Re: Sick N. Tired

I suggest that Dallas & Tarrant Count Community Colleges cut salaries by 10% across the board, from top to bottom, and then close the remaining deficit with tuition increases--in an attempt to maintain close to the current number of classes.

Regarding pay cuts, would you rather take a 10% pay cut or have a 10% chance of losing your job?

Incidentally, my long time advice regarding coping with the effects of hitting global peak oil production can be found by doing a Google Search for: ELP Plan.

To put it mildly, it has been "underreported" that global crude oil production in recent years has failed to exceed the 2005 annual rate, despite US oil prices averaging $100 per barrel in 2008.

But the primary threat we are facing is a long term accelerating rate of decline in global net oil exports.

Re: Oil Exports

China and India's ("Chindia's") oil imports as a percentage of net oil exports from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran and UAE (the 2005 top five net oil exporters, accounting for about half of global net oil exports) rose from 19% in 2005 to 27% in 2008.

Note that combined net oil exports from the (2005) top five net oil exporters fell at 2%/year from 2005 and 2008, and we expect to see a long term accelerating rate of decline in total global net oil exports.

If, for the sake of argument, we extrapolate Chindia's 2005-2008 rate of increase in net oil imports out for a few years and if we take our most optimistic projection for net oil exports from the (2005) top five net oil exporters, then in 2018--eight years from now--Chindia's net oil imports would be equal to 100% of net oil exports from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Iran and the UAE.

Closer to home, the combined net oil exports from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela dropped by 20% in only four years, from 2004 to 2008.

The recent pattern that we have seen is that non-OECD oil importers are effectively outbidding OECD oil importers for oil supplies, so my outlook for OECD oil importers like the US is that we will be squeezed between a long term, and accelerating, net export decline and rising oil import demand from non-OECD oil importers like China & India.

In effect, in my opinion the US can look forward to being forced to make do with a declining share of a falling volume of global net oil exports.