Green Energy: Take A Fresh Look At Nuclear

Plans to expand nuclear power usually trigger fears of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Nightmarish accidents occurred at those three nuclear plants, designed in the 1960's and built in the 1970's, fueling a public climate of jitters about the safety of this energy source.

However, misgivings about nuclear's safety are at odds with the facts. At the end of 2019, there were 98 operating nuclear reactors at 58 power plants in 29 states in the U.S. with no incidents since the Three Mile Island radiation leak of 1979.  That was more than two decades ago. That plant is 38-years-old.

Primarily due to the escalating costs of regulation, construction and maintenance, the total number of operational nuclear reactors has shrunk from its pinnacle of 108 in 2000.  The price tag for today's traditional nuclear power plant, depending on capacity, runs anywhere from $6 billion to $9 billion.  

Although the country has fewer nuclear reactors, those power plants still produce 20% of all electricity. Natural gas accounts for 38% of power generation; coal, 23%; hydroelectric, 7%, and wind and solar output equals 12%.  Those sources combined churned out 4.1 billion mega-watt hours of power.  

Those figures are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which published the data this year. According to an EIA report, the U.S. has the most nuclear generation capacity of any nation, but France's nuclear plants account for a larger share of the country's total electricity output, 71.5%.   

As the world searches for ways to reduce carbon emissions, there is increasing interest in small modular nuclear reactors (SMR).  These advanced reactors are envisioned as power sources for electricity, desalination and other industrial uses.  U.S., Canada and China are pursuing the technology.

In 2020, the Energy Department awarded $210 million to ten projects to develop technologies for SMR's as part of an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.  Scores of SMR initiatives are underway at private firms, including General Electric, a pioneer in nuclear power.  

Although still in the development stage, these small, modular reactors will prospectively be designed to develop 300 mega watts of power, compared with more than 1,000 megawatts for larger plants operating in the country.  

What makes these smaller reactors different? The footprint is reduced.  In fact, one SMR could fit into an area the size of a microbrewery.  The light water-cooled reactors are modular, which means the plants could be built faster and cheaper, saving billions of dollars. 

These innovative reactors could be shipped by rail to power sites, reducing the time to erect a new plant and making nuclear more cost effective.  A few nascent SMR designs are contemplating incorporating the use of a coolant other than light water, such as gas, liquid metal or even molten salt.   

Proponents are not calling for abandoning green energy sources such as wind and solar, but suggest these innovative reactors could replace larger, outdated nuclear or coal facilities. They insist the mini-reactors are inherently safer than the older designs, offering added protection from nuclear meltdowns. 

The ingenious nuclear plant would work the same as today power facilities, heating water to produce steam.  The steam is used to spin large turbines that generate the electricity.  The process requires fission to split atoms inside the reactor.  The reactor core contains uranium fuel. 

In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a safety evaluation report on an SMR, a critical step before the final design can be approved.  The firm,  NuScale, based in Portland, is developing the first commercial SMR for utilities in Utah, slated for launch by the end of the decade.

One drawback for nuclear energy has always been the issue of nuclear waste, which remains highly radioactive for longer than a human lifespan. The new downsized reactors will produce waste, but there will be less of it because of its diminished power capacity. 

Concerns about nuclear waste are legitimate, but often exaggerated by the media.  All the waste from 60 years of America's nuclear reactors would take up less space than one average-size Walmart store. Compare that to the toxic waste from a single, large coal plant. It dwarfs nuclear waste.

Nuclear emits no carbon.  It can supplement renewables.  When clouds blot out the sun or the winds are calm, those two sources of energy are dormant.  Without a reliable backup source, homes and businesses would be plunged into darkness.  Today coal plants often are the backup.

As a practical matter, the more solar and wind populate a country's energy grid, the more backup power is needed.  Take Denmark for example.  On windy days, the country's offshore wind farms supply 100% of its power.  Over a full year, wind output accounts for only 50% of electricity generation.

On windless days, Denmark purchases backup power from other countries at premium prices. 

Germany has plowed $400 billion into its renewable program, yet carbon emissions have remained stubbornly high.  The reason? Backup power is often supplied by coal or gas burning plants. Closer to home, California has made billions in investments in renewables, but emissions remain essentially flat. 

A recent report by the National Renewable Energy Lab, an advocate for green energy, issued a green energy projection it cautiously labels as "theoretically" possible:

"Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in  2050."  Even under this optimistic scenario, there's a 20% power shortage.

This by no means diminishes renewables.  Wind and solar are excellent sources of clean, carbon-free power.  However, addressing the power-gap should be the top concern of any country or environmentalist interested in achieving a carbon neutral goal. Ignoring it is foolhardy. 

There is no technology on the horizon that offers the scale of nuclear power as an immediate backup. Hydrogen and batteries are often discussed as green alternatives, but any development of a working plant remains decades away, if ever.

Solar panels and wind farms may offer the best hope of reducing carbon emissions, but neither can overcome intermittency when nature interrupts their source for generating power.  Future electric grids will need clean backup power.  That's why it's urgent to take a fresh look at nuclear.

District of Columbia: Why Statehood Is A Bad Idea

Anyone whose traveled to the District of Columbia has spotted license plates with the slogan: "Taxation Without Representation." That has been a rallying cry by the district's politicians who seek statehood for the 68.3-square mile stretch of concrete that's 17 times smaller than Rhode Island.

After decades of lobbying, the District of Columbia's Democrats may get their wish.  The House of Representatives, under the iron thumb of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, approved a bill (HR 51) to make the district the nation's 51st state.  The legislation will now proceed to the Senate for a make-or-break vote.

Pelosi's political strategy is clear: permanent Democrat control of the Senate. Statehood would grant the district two senators and one representative.  That would be tantamount to giving Democrats control of the Senate because less than 7% of all registered voters in D.C. are Republicans.

No Republican has ever been elected mayor of the District of Columbia since home rule began in 1975. The GOP has no representation on the D.C. council.  The last Republican to serve left office in 2009.  This is the deepest blue area in the entire country.

If approved, this wouldn't be the first time politics played a role in statehood.  Eight days before the 1864 presidential election, Nevada was admitted to the union.  The newly minted state cast its electoral votes for Abraham Lincoln, whose re-election was anything but certain in the midst of the Civil War.

However, that's where the similarities end between 1864 and today's drive for 51.  The district's founding in 1790 was a compromise ironed out between Northern and Southern states to set aside a federal district to serve as the seat of government. The founders never intended to operate the capital as a state.

The founding leaders felt so passionate about giving the district freedom-from-state-influence that they enshrined its unique status in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17:

"The Congress shall have power to....exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and acceptance of Congress, become the state of the Government of the United States."   

For good reason, the founders feared that if the capital was a state, members of the state government would be indebted  to federal power. James Madison believed that if the District of Columbia was a state, it would also disrupt the proceeding of the federal government because of the influence of state politics.

In 1961, three-fourths of the states ratified the 23rd Amendment, which allows citizens residing in the district to send representatives to vote in the Electoral College for president and Vice President.  Prior to the amendment, district citizens could not vote for those offices, unless registered in a state. 

That background should be a factor in legislators debate over the statehood proposal, which would shrink the federal district to a two-mile square consisting of the White House, Capitol, Supreme Court and the Mall.  The remainder of the area would encompass a new state, home to 700,000 people.

Democrats consider the path to statehood straight forward.  Under the Constitution, the party contends Congress has the authority to approve the district's request to become a state.  In support of the proposal, they claim a new state can be carved from one that already exists, which is a contradiction in terms.

That's the problem for Democrats.  The District of Columbia is not a state territory. The Democrats' bill would divvy up an area that was never intended to become a state.  But that matters little to the partisans who consider the founders racists and the Constitution a quaint, outdated document.

Republicans argue that states historically have been admitted to the union under the Admission Clause of Article IV of the Constitution.  It is not applicable since the district doesn't qualify as a territory, contend Constitutional experts.  Others disagree, focusing on the original "ten-miles square" wording.

Since the district clearly has expanded, Democrats have seized on that fact to claim the founders did not set a minimum size for the district, so shriveling the capital to two-miles should pass Constitutional muster.  If the bill is rubber stamped, the issue will likely wind up before the Supreme Court.   

For 200 years, the seat of America's government has been D.C. Arbitrarily constricting the capital to a tiny plot of buildings does not meet the test of a reasonable interpretation of the founders' intent, Republicans point out.  A Constitutional Amendment should be required to grant D.C. statehood.

Granting the District of Columbia statehood is a naked political ploy that should be given short shrift by the Senate.  But with Democrats holding the deciding vote in cases of a tie, don't discount the party's will power on this issue.  If successful, the founders worst fears with be realized. 

Cartels Rake In Billions From Illegal Immigration

The grisly image is seared into our conscious.  Two girls, aged three and five, dangling over a 14-foot wall at the Mexican border. A male drops the girls one-by-one, their tiny bodies thudding on U.S. soil in the dead of night.  The video image was captured by border patrol agents who rescued the girls.

Two males scampered into Mexico after they dumped their human cargo.  They are smugglers for Mexican drug kingpins, likely members of either Los Zetas or the Gulf cartel, which control yawning swaths of territory along the U.S. border.  No one crosses without paying the cartel.  No one.

The media shuns the subject of human trafficking at the border, preferring to shape Americans views with coverage that focuses only on the dreadful plight of the illegal immigrants.  Their shabby clothes, the frightened mothers clutching babies in their arms and the hollow faces of innocent children.

That message resonates with most people, naturally arousing sympathy. Politicians tread on this empathy, opening the border to a flood of immigrants.  Lifting restrictions, however, exposes the underbelly of the exploitation of immigrants by vicious Mexican cartels.

The media and politicians ignore this aspect because it tarnishes the image of the humanitarian narrative of open borders. Unrestricted access at the souther border is good news for the Mexican cartels because it ensures they will have a steady flow of "loads" (human cargo) to smuggle into the U.S.

These immigrants are often physically and sexually abused, extorted and sometimes murdered on the journey through Mexico by savage cartels thugs.  The criminals charge anywhere from $10,000 for a family to $3,000-to $6,000 per person to sneak immigrants across the 375-mile Mexican-U.S. border.

Smuggling is a hugely profitable enterprise for the drug lords.  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates the Mexican cartels rake in $4 billion annually.  The Mexican government has calculated the take could be as high as $6 billion.  Smuggling is almost as lucrative as drugs

Illegals are increasingly from Central American countries Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.  Mexican immigrants have been declining, estimates the Pew Research Center. From 2007 to 2017, the number of unauthorized Mexicans crossing the border fell from 52% to 20% of the total.

An Associated Press (AP) investigation reported most Central American immigrants are promised a care-free journey to the U.S. border in luxury buses with meals included when they leave home.  It is a rude awakening later to be sardined into oppressively hot trailer trucks without food and little water. 

Those fleeing their countries must first pay a local smuggler to travel to the Mexican border. When the arrive, they fork over thousands of dollars to cartel coyotes.  The arrivals are packed into windowless semi-trailers trucks operated by the cartel for the rugged journey north. 

As the crowded trailers trundle across Mexico, National Guard members stop the truck operators and demand more money, the AP reported. On one trip, five agents from the Attorney General's Office halted a truck and forced each immigrant to hand over $35 each.  

Immigrants are forced to pay smugglers for so-called options, such as helping the individual cross the Arizona desert or find shelter. Some immigrants eschew the trailers, traveling illegally on trains or on foot, where they are prey for bandits and dishonest police.  The cost is less, but the risks are higher.  

Danger lurks even for those in the trailers. In April, nineteen migrants were shot and burned in Camargo, Mexico, apparently as a cartel warning that travelers must pay to enter their territory.  Not long ago in San Antonio, ten immigrants died in transit after being assured the trailer had refrigeration.

"They (cartel smugglers) have no concern for humanity, none; it's a money business," says Jack Staton, acting special agent in charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations in El Paso. "They look at people as merchandise, as a way to make money."  

ICE agents have targeted cartel trucking because of the brazen nature of the smuggling operation.  Often the trucks are emblazoned with the logos of well-known companies to disguise their nefarious operation. Although many arrests have been made, the cartels view it as a cost of doing business.

The Mexican government's claims that it is clamping down on smuggling are a hollow assertion.  The tide of humans from Central America continue to be transported with impunity across the sprawling country without interference. Bribes are the currency that paves the way in corrupt Mexico.  

During April, more than 177,000 illegal immigrants were apprehended by the U.S, Border Patrol, according to preliminary reports from Customs and Border Protection.  An additional 42,620 undocumented immigrants escaped arrest.  Each month the numbers are mushrooming. 

As the immigrant tide rises, the cartels remain one step ahead of Mexican and U.S. law enforcement. The sophistication of their operation is improving, most recently with the introduction of wristbands that help cartels track migrants and payments.  

Bands of different colors are given each migrant to indicate the price they paid and the number of border crossing attempts.  For instance, first time crossers receive red bracelets.  Those with purple bracelets have been sent back twice and are paying more for one last attempt.

Each bracelet has wording signifying whether they have paid the cartel or still owe money.  Some colors represent the cartel smuggling the immigrant.  Border experts say the cartels have high-tech data collection methods and know where to reach family members of those they traffic.  

The information on wristbands was provided by the office of Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas.  Cuellar is vice chairman of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee. Cuellar says most migrants are now crossing near the Texas towns of Del Rio, Mission, McAllen and La Joya. 

This is a crisis, no matter how the Biden Administration tries to sugarcoat the border chaos. The Biden plan of  dispatching millions of dollars to Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador to stanch the inflow of migrants is senseless and shortsighted. It has been tried before and failed miserably.  

The money winds up in the pockets of corrupt politicians in those Central American countries, who have no incentive to do anything about the human wave heading to the U.S.  Local smugglers pay off the politicians. Local economies benefit when immigrants wire U.S. dollars to their home countries.

The most effective solution is to finish the border wall, double enforcement and threaten retribution if Mexico doesn't slam shut the revolving door from its country to the U.S.  Then the U.S. should increase the quota for legal entry of Central Americans seeking asylum or permanent residency.

This is also the most compassionate way to treat immigrants who dream of security in America. The current border situation enriches the Mexican cartels, who use the trafficking cash to fund their other criminal enterprises at the expense of the poor who seek a better life.

Subjecting immigrants to the inhumane treatment of cartels is cruel, not humanitarian. If Americans are moved by the media images of the mistreatment of children, then they should support legal ways for immigrants to safely enter the U.S. That is far better than allowing cartels to abuse immigrants.

Police Shootings: Data Rebukes False Narrative

Another police killing.  A male viciously beaten to death.  But this murder went unreported by the media.  That's because the victim was a white police officer.  The alleged assailant is African-American. Skin color should not matter, however, in today's politically-charged environment race is paramount.

Delaware Police Officer Corporal Keith Heacook responded last week to a call for help in the assault of an elderly couple.  After he arrived on the scene, he was brutally beaten and left unconscious. You couldn't find ten Americans who know Heacook's name.  

You can bet most American recognize the names of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade and Rayshard Brooks.  The shootings of these African-Americans have become symbols of the narrative of racist police killings.  There are no excuses for the horrific murders of these victims. 

However, the actions of a few policeman cannot justify demonizing and condemning all law enforcement officers. The false narrative, perpetuated by the media and politicians, portrays an African-American community under siege by racist police officers deliberately gunning for blacks.

President Biden joined the chorus after police officer Derek Chauvin's conviction, contending the verdict "ripped the blinders off for the whole world to see systemic racism" of police.  A specious claim since the prosecution in the case never introduced a scintilla of evidence Chauvin was a racist.

Chauvin was guilty, but not of personal racism. He made an indefensible decision to use excessive force.

Biden is not alone in race-baiting.  NBA basketball player LeBron James, the self-appointed, unofficial African-American spokesman for the league, tweeted the following after the recent murder of Ahmoud Arbery in Georgia.  The alleged killers were two white males.  

"We're literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes! Can't even go for a damn jog man! Like WTF man are you kidding me?!?!?!?!?!

In light of such prejudicial rhetoric, it is time to set the record straight.  It is a rarity for a police officer to shoot anyone.  White or black.  

In fact, a black male is more likely to be struck by lightning than to be shot by a police officer.  The latest data from 2019 shows that police shot and killed 1,003 people in the United States.  Of those, 405 were white and 250 were African-American.  Fifty-five were unarmed suspects: 25 whites, 14 blacks.

Since 2015, law enforcement officers have shot and killed 6,211 people: 46% of them (2,883) were white, while 24% (1,496) were black.  According to the most recent Census data African-Americans constitute 13.4% of the population, while whites make up 60.1%.  

One of the stubborn myths about police shootings is the fact officers shoot unarmed black men at an alarming rate, compared to whites. There have been about 7,300 black homicide victims a year.  The 14 unarmed victims in fatal police shootings would comprise 0.2% of that total.            

Since 2015, the data finds 91% of black males killed by police officers were armed: 75% were armed with a gun or knife; the remainder used other weapons, including automobiles.  

The data cited above is from The Washington Post's Fatal Force database. That is significant because The Post is certainly not conservative or a pro-police news outlet.  Often politicians and the media falsely claim law enforcement under reports shootings of victims, especially African-Americans.

The FBI compiles data from reports voluntarily sent to its offices from police departments.  Since all police departments are not compelled to provide the figures, there is cynicism about the FBI data. The Post uses news accounts, social media postings and police reports to build its database.  

Scientific studies have proven that racial bias is not a factor in the disparity between whites and blacks killed by police.  A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019 found "no significant evidence of a racial disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police."

For perspective, blacks accounted for 53% of the murder and non-negligent manslaughter arrests in 2018 according to FBI data.  Blacks represented 54% of all robbery arrests and 37% of all violent crime arrests versus whites' percentages of 44%, 43%, and 59%, respectively, for those same categories.

In other words, police are more likely to encounter a black person in investigating violent crimes. More than 1.8 million blacks were arrested in 2019 for all crimes, the FBI reports.  Based 2019 FBI data, a minuscule 0.0099% of the 10.08 million people arrested by police were shot and killed by an officer. 

African-Americans made up 27.4% of the police arrests in the latest data.  That means one out of every 6,762 black offenders were shot and killed by police.  The ratio of unarmed black males shot and killed was one out of every 67,334 African-American men who were arrested. 

The statistic no media or politician dares to mention is this: 88.9% of all murders of African-Americans are committed by blacks.  By comparison 80% of white victims were murdered by other whites. Blacks kill far more of their own citizens than white policemen.  

Those figures hardly justify headlines screaming police shootings of blacks are an epidemic. Given the sheer volumes of contacts law enforcement has in a single year, the number of people killed by police stands as evidence most police act responsibly and use proper judgement. 

As further proof, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) for 2015 revealed that 53.5 million people had at least one contact with police. The majority (95%) of those contacts involved traffic stops.  Only 2% of all citizens involved with police experienced force or the threat of force, the BJS reports.  

The facts haven't stopped politicians from asserting policing is an "indefensible system that grants impunity for state violence."  That is a quote from Brooklyn Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the outspoken leaders of the national effort to dismantle policing in America. 

The anti-police campaign has been built on lies, myths and the media's biased reporting of officer shootings.  Yet if anyone armed with facts tries to unravel the narrative, that individual is branded a racist for refusing to bow to the established presumption of police targeting blacks.

Unless the country begins to examine the facts, racial divisions will become a chasm too wide to repair.  That prospect is tragically becoming a reality because politicians and the media are invested in criminalizing police protection in our communities.  

Ironically, a Gallup poll found African-American respondents were twice as likely as their white counterparts to want stepped up policing in their communities.  Activists who want to defund police would do more harm to black communities by their insistence on weakening police protection.    

If the anarchists have their way, the real epidemic will be runaway crime in black communities.