Britain will have to add New Nuclear Power Plants to their Renewable Energy Mix to meet Demand

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Coal-fired power plants produce reliable and inexpensive electric power.  But they pollute too much for those on the left.  So they want to replace them with renewable energy sources.  The leading two being solar power and wind power.  Which require a lot more infrastructure to produce the same amount of electric power.  Making these sources very, very expensive.  So no one builds these unless they are highly subsidized by the taxpayers.

But they have other problems besides their high costs.  The sun doesn’t always shine.  And the wind doesn’t always blow.  Which means you can’t replace all coal-fired power plants with these renewable sources.  You also need something that can produce electric power when the sun doesn’t shine.  And the wind doesn’t blow (see Britain to Encourage Both Nuclear and Wind Power by STANLEY REED posted 11/23/2012 on The New York Times).

The British government on Friday announced far-reaching changes in energy regulation designed to encourage development of renewable energy and nuclear power while ensuring the country could meet its electricity needs.

The changes will gradually quadruple the charges levied on consumers and businesses to help support electricity generation from low-carbon sources, to a total of about £9.8 billion, or $15.7 billion, in the 2020-21 fiscal year from £2.35 billion currently.

The government forecasts that the new price supports will add 7 percent, or about £95 a year, to the average household electricity bill. Currently, such charges add 2 percent to energy bills, or £20 a year…

Electricity generated from cleaner sources like nuclear and offshore wind is much more expensive than power generated by coal- or gas-fired plants. Companies will invest in clean energy only if given substantial incentives. The government hopes to attract £110 billion in energy investment through 2020…

Others said they were appalled by support for new nuclear installations. While nuclear plants are low carbon emitters, they bring risks of accidents as well as the unresolved problem of what to do with spent fuel.

Stephan Singer, head of energy policy in Brussels for the World Wildlife Fund, said his organization was “fundamentally opposed” to price supports for nuclear power…

Britain intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. Until now, wind power has been the main beneficiary of government intervention. Now the government has come to believe that while building more nuclear plants would be costly and controversial, they will be necessary to reach emission targets.

This is the price of going green.  Higher electric bills.  And more nuclear power plants.  For there are no renewable sources that we can build that can provide baseload power.  Power that is there 24/7 regardless of time of day or weather conditions.  Hydroelectric power could but pretty much all the good rivers have already been dammed.  Which lives only one emissions-free energy source.  Nuclear power.  With all the baggage it comes with.  Safety issues.  Spent fuel issues.  Terrorist issues.  Things you don’t have to worry about with a coal-fired power plant.  That’s why they provide the majority of our electric power.  There just isn’t anything else that can do it as well.

But because a coal-fired power plant may put into the atmosphere dangerous emissions over their operating lifetime equal to a volcanic eruption or two the environmentalists won’t have them.  No.  They’d rather you have higher electric bills.  And suffer more power outages.  Of course, they may change their tune once their Internet access becomes spotty due to those power interruptions.  But until then expect higher electric bills.  To fund those new windmills and nuclear power plants.  The costly renewable energy that will replace your beloved coal-fired power plants.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Hurricane Sandy Generates Economic Activity at the Expense of those who Lost Their Homes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Hurricane Sandy left a swathe of destruction in its path.  But it turns out there is a silver lining to this death and destruction.  It’s providing an economic stimulus.  A regular Keynesian stimulus bill.  Only without the messiness of having to get a majority vote in Congress.  Something the politicians can really get behind.  If only they could get a hurricane generating machine (see Sandy Seen Boosting U.S. With as Much as $240 Billion Rebuilding by Jeff Kearns, Susanna Pak and Noah Buhayar posted 11/23/2012 on Bloomberg).

John Cataneo is working his 20 employees overtime and still can’t keep up with demand from customers who need plumbing repaired after superstorm Sandy. He says he’s hired two new workers and may need more…

Cataneo’s experience shows how the storm is giving the U.S. Northeast — and the rest of the country — an economic boost that may eventually surpass the loss of business it caused. Reconstruction and related purchases and hiring may range from $140 billion to $240 billion and increase U.S. economic growth by 0.5 percentage point next year, assuming $50 billion in losses, according to Economic Outlook Group LLC, a Princeton, New Jersey-based forecasting firm.

Well, that’s good news, isn’t it?  Up to $240 billion in new economic activity.  Wow.  Guess hurricanes are good things.  A blessing.  Providing new jobs.  Injecting new money into the local economy.  Why, there hardly is a downside.  Except for this (see After Sandy damage, insurance adjusters may bring more bad news by Ben Berkowitz, Michelle Conlin and Jonathan Allen posted 11/23/2012 on Reuters).

After another day of pumping out their swampy, moldy houses, neighbors in Breezy Point in New York City huddled at the quaint generator-powered firehouse Wednesday night, stamping their feet to stay warm. Neighbors picked at food from tin cans and sipped soups from Styrofoam cups as they lamented the growing holes in a safety net they thought they had: homeowner’s insurance.

“They’re covering five shingles and a piece of gutter, and that’s it,” says Kathleen Valentine, a fire alarm dispatcher who spent the night of Superstorm Sandy working while her house filled with water and dead fish. Her insurance agent from Narragansett Bay Insurance Company said her policy would pay only for wind damage. She is still waiting for someone from the federal flood insurance program to show up…

The trouble is, many homeowners don’t read those policies closely enough to realize that most don’t cover flooding. They don’t always get both homeowner’s insurance, usually provided by a private company, and flood insurance provided through the U.S. government’s National Flood Insurance Program.

Only 14 percent of homeowners in the Northeast hold flood insurance policies, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Federal law requires flood insurance to mortgage any home in a designated high-risk floodplain. But once the initial policy, usually for a year term, expires, no law says you have to renew it, and many people don’t because banks don’t make them.

In New Jersey, only 231,000 of the homes in the 20 coastal counties had flood insurance, according to FEMA.

There’s a reason why private insurance companies don’t sell flood insurance to people living in high-risk floodplains.  The cost of the policies would be so high to cover the losses in the event of a flood (pretty much rebuilding all houses in the area) that no one would buy the insurance.  So why bother?  Which is why the federal government provides flood insurance.  So they can spread the cost of flood claims to people who don’t live in high-risk floodplains.  Something insurance companies can’t do.  Because they don’t have the power to tax or print money.  But even the policies the government sells are too expensive for 86% of the people living in high-risk floodplains.  So they don’t buy them.  And suffer the consequences when the flood comes.

So that blessing of Keynesian-like economic stimulus?  The money to pay for it comes from in part insurance companies who can’t invest that money elsewhere.  In part from the federal government, further increasing the federal deficit which is ultimately paid by the taxpayers.  But mostly from the people who lost everything and have to pay out of pocket to rebuild their lives.  This is the blessing of that economic activity.  The destruction of lives so other people can prosper.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mohamed Morsi takes Egypt One Step Closer to Radical Islamic Theocracy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

Hosni Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood out of power when he ruled Egypt.  Suppressing Iranian influence in Egypt.  He even jailed Mohamed Morsi.  A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  When the Arab Spring came along President Obama stated that long-time US ally Mubarak had to go.  Even though the only organized opposition was the brotherhood.  With their Iranian ties.  And their ties to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  That terrorist group and branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that likes to fire missiles into Israel.  Threatening regional stability.

So abandoning Mubarak was risky business.  For the likely power to fill the resulting power void in Egypt would not be friendly to Israel, the US or regional stability.  But the naysayers, and President Obama, brushed those concerns aside.  For this wasn’t their fathers’ Muslim Brotherhood.  This was a peace-loving brotherhood.  Who wanted only democracy.  Just like those Iranians who seized power in Iran after the 1979 Revolution.  And installed a radical Islamic theocracy.  But that wasn’t going to happen in Egypt.  No, the Arab Spring was making the Middle East and North Africa safe for democracy.  At least according to President Obama.  Of course, those on the ground in Egypt would beg to differ (see Egypt’s President Morsi faces judicial revolt over decree by Tom Perry, Reuters, posted 11/24/2012 on The Vancouver Sun).

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi faced a rebellion from judges who accused him on Saturday of expanding his powers at their expense, deepening a crisis that has triggered violence in the street and exposed the country’s deep divisions.

The Judges’ Club, a body representing judges across Egypt, called for a strike during a meeting interrupted with chants demanding the “downfall of the regime” – the rallying cry in the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak last year.

Morsi’s political opponents and supporters, representing the divide between newly empowered Islamists and their critics, called for rival demonstrations on Tuesday over a decree that has triggered concern in the West.

Issued late on Thursday, it marks an effort by Morsi to consolidate his influence after he successfully sidelined Mubarak-era generals in August. The decree defends from judicial review decisions taken by Morsi until a new parliament is elected in a vote expected early next year.

It also shields the Islamist-dominated assembly writing Egypt’s new constitution from a raft of legal challenges that have threatened the body with dissolution, and offers the same protection to the Islamist-controlled upper house of parliament.

Guess it’s their fathers’ Muslim Brotherhood after all.  Boy, what a mistake it was throwing Hosni Mubarak under the bus.  We should have worked with other Arab states friendly with Egypt who oppose the Iranian threat in the region to find a better solution than giving Egypt to Iran.  For people may have complained about the restrictions of their freedoms under Mubarak but they haven’t seen anything yet.  Just ask the Iranians who lived through the 1979 Revolution now living under a radical Islamic theocracy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Canada’s Supreme Court ends Pfizer’s Viagra Patent Rights Early

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

That little blue pill, Viagra, has been a great success.  Making a lot of men happy again.  And their wives.  Who are forever thankful that Pfizer created that little blue pill.  And were willing to pay anything for it.  To recapture the virility of their youth.  Even if it made Pfizer rich.  For the way these men looked at it Pfizer was doing God’s work.  Making the impossible possible.  And the thanks they get?  They lose their patent rights early (see Pfizer cuts Viagra price in Canada after court loss to generics 5 by Reuters posted 11/25/2012 on the Toronto Sun).

Pfizer Inc has cut the Canadian price of its Viagra erectile dysfunction drug after the Supreme Court of Canada opened the door to sales of generic versions of the drug, the company said on Thursday.

“We are lowering original Viagra’s price to be in line with generic versions because we are committed to ensuring that Viagra patients continue to have access to the original, made by Pfizer, and at a competitive price,” Scott Wilks from Pfizer’s Canadian subsidiary said in a statement.

The patent on Viagra had been due to expire in 2014 in Canada. The Supreme Court threw the door open to generics immediately on Nov. 8 when it ruled that Pfizer had not provided enough details when it filed its patent.

Why did Pfizer create Viagra?  Out of altruism?  Were they concerned that not enough men were having sex?  Did they want to make sure all husbands could satisfy their wives sexually?  No.  They did it for the money.  That’s why they spent a fortune to develop that pill.  And why they filed a patent to recover the money they poured into that pill.  To reap profits for all of their hard work.  That’s why Pfizer created Viagra.  And they wouldn’t have done it if they couldn’t have profited off of it.  Yes, the pills may have been expensive.  But if they weren’t allowed to charge those high prices after creating it they simply wouldn’t have created it.

This is how the pharmaceutical industry works.  There are no sure things when it comes to creating new drugs.  Only a lot of costly dead ends.  Which is why they have to profit greatly off of their successes.  To pay for those successes.  As well as to pay for all of those costly dead ends.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Global Warming Fears wane as People buy Cars with Powerful Internal Combustion Engines

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 25th, 2012

Week in Review

After the devastation of Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy those on the Left are asking with smug arrogance if we’re ready to address the issue of global warming seriously now.  Just as they did after Hurricane Katrina.  About 7 years earlier.  With relatively calm hurricane seasons between Katrina and Sandy.  Which wasn’t supposed to happen according to those on the left.  For they said there would be an increase in the number of Katrina-like events happening each hurricane season following the year of Hurricane Katrina.  Because of man-made global warming.  What they call a scientific fact.  Even though the facts appear to say otherwise.

So the majority of people ignore their warnings.  As they tired of these people crying wolf.  Proven by the type of cars we’re buying.  And the type of cars we want to buy (see 12 More New Cars Worth Waiting For by Michael Frank posted 11/25/2012 on Popular Mechanics).

Go back a few years and every new car shouted about mpg and economizing. This year, fuel efficiency is still important, but style is back for the new cars sporting 2013 and 2014 model years.

What do these new cars have in common?  An internal combustion engine.  That’s right, not a one of them is a hybrid or an electric car.

When the government bailed out General Motors and took an ownership position they pushed the Chevy Volt.  A hybrid that was going to help save the world from global warming.  There was only one problem.  Few people wanted to buy a Chevy Volt.  As people don’t want to pay more and get less in a car.

Based on the type of cars we’re buying it’s fair to say the masses aren’t wringing their hands over the warming they’re causing.  Because they don’t believe they are causing it.  For after being told that if we don’t do something right now it will be too late prevent the destructive damage of global warming for the last 20 years people start doubting them.  Besides, glaciers once covered the world.  They don’t now.  And it sure wasn’t man-made global warming that melted them away.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,