$50 light bulbs - MANDATED

I am going shopping



LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms




By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer
Mon May 16, 2011



.NEW YORK – Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.

Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.

The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.

The technology in traditional "incandescent" bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it's used in Hasbro's Easy-Bake Oven.

To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.

Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.

Compact fluorescents are the most obvious replacement, but they have drawbacks. They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away. They last longer than traditional bulbs but not as long as LEDs. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.

Another new lighting technology, organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, has had problems reaching mass production. OLEDs are glowing sheets or tiles, rather than pinprick light sources, as LEDs are. They're used as vibrant color screens for smartphones, particularly from Samsung Electronics Co.

But making OLEDs that are big, bright, cheap and long-lasting enough for use as light sources has proved difficult, in part because they use chemicals that are sensitive to oxygen and spoil unless sealed very carefully.

Acuity Brands Inc., an Atlanta-based maker of light fixtures, will be showing some OLED panels at the show. They will go on sale next year, but the price will likely make them technology showpieces rather than candidates for everyday lighting.

LEDs are efficient, durable and produced in great quantities, but they're still expensive. An LED bulb can contain a dozen light-emitting diodes, or tiny semiconductor chips, which cost about $1 each.

The big problem with LEDs is that although they don't produce as much heat as incandescent bulbs, the heat they do create shortens the lifespan and reduces the efficiency of the chips. Cramming a dozen chips together in a tight bulb-shaped package that fits in today's lamps and sockets makes the heat problem worse. The brighter the bulb, the bigger the problem is.

The most powerful pear-shaped LED bulbs in stores today — the kind that fits existing lamps — produce light equivalent to a 60-watt bulb, though there are more powerful ones for directional or flood lighting.

Osram Sylvania, a unit of Germany's Siemens AG, said it has overcome the heat problem and will be showing a pear-shaped 100-watt-equivalent LED bulb this week. It doesn't have a firm launch date, but it usually shows products about a year before they hit store shelves.

Lighting Sciences Group Corp., a Satellite Beach, Fla.-based company that specializes in LED lighting, will be showing several 100-watt-equivalent prototypes, including some that solve the problem of cooling the LEDs by using microscopic devices that move air over the chips, like miniature fans.

Before the 100-watters, there will be 75-watters on the shelves this year. Osram Sylvania will be selling them at Lowe's starting in July. Royal Philips Electronics NV, the world's biggest lighting maker, will have them in stores late this year for $40 to $45.

However, 60-watt bulbs are the big prize, since they're the most common. There are 425 million incandescent light bulbs in the 60-watt range in use in the U.S. today, said Zia Eftekhar, the head of Philips' North American lighting division. The energy savings that could be realized by replacing them with 10-watt LED bulbs is staggering.

To stimulate LED development, the federal government has instituted a $10 million "L Prize" for an energy-efficient replacement for the 60-watt bulb. Philips is so far the only entrant in testing, and Eftekhar expects the company to win it soon. But Lighting Sciences Group plans its own entry, which it will demonstrate at the trade show.

Philips has been selling a 60-watt-equivalent bulb at Home Depot since December that's quite similar to the one submitted to the contest. But it's slightly dimmer, consumes 2 watts too much power and costs $40, whereas the L Prize target is $22. Sylvania sells a similar LED bulb at Lowe's, also for $40.

However, LED prices are coming down quickly. The DoE expects a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb to cost $10 by 2015, putting them within striking range of the price of a compact fluorescent bulb.

Bob Karlicek, the director of the Smart Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., thinks that price is achievable.

But, he said, "it's not necessarily clear to people in the lighting industry that LED chips were ever meant to go into a bulb."

What's really needed, he said, is a new approach to lighting — new fixtures and lamps that spread out the LEDs, avoiding the heat problem.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
way to go

Chavez Speaks and Blames the US for Everything

Chavez is cutting power to businesses that have failed to reduce power usage.

Reuters, March 21, 2010


"Indeed, I would love to have the powers I'm accused of by the opposition to defeat this situation which not only hurts Venezuela but the whole world as a result of the destructive voracity of the capitalist system."








Chavez

US - 20% powered by wind; UK - you're full of hot air

Two articles.  The first, from Reuters, with the official position of the Obama administration.  The second, from Britain, with the view most scientists have on the question.





U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid


January 21, 2010
2:09pm EST
By Tom Doggett



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wind energy could generate 20 percent of the electricity needed by households and businesses in the eastern half of the United States by 2024, but it would require up to $90 billion in investment, according to a government report released on Wednesday.

For the 20 percent wind scenario to work, billions must be spent on installing wind towers on land and sea and about 22,000 miles of new high-tech power lines to carry the electricity to cities, according to the study from the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

"Twenty percent wind is an ambitious goal," said David Corbus, the project manager for the study. "We can bring more wind power online, but if we don't have the proper infrastructure to move that power around, it's like buying a hybrid car and leaving it in the garage,"

The private sector cannot fund all the needed spending, so a big chunk would have to come from the federal government through programs such as loan guarantees, Corbus said.

The Obama administration is already dedicating billions of dollars to double the amount of electricity produced by wind and other renewables energy sources by January 2012.

The Interior Department will decide this spring whether to approve the Cape Wind project off Cape Cod, Massachusetts. That project, long delayed because of local opposition, would provide electricity to about 400,000 homes.

The amount of U.S. electricity generated by wind was up 29 percent during January-October of last year compared to the same period is 2008, according to the Energy Department.

Reaching the 20 percent threshold for wind by 2024 in the eastern electric grid would require 225,000 megawatts of wind generation capacity in the region, about a 10-fold increase from current levels, the study said.

One megawatt of electricity can provide power to about 1,000 homes.

Wind turbines would be scattered throughout the eastern grid, which extends from the Plains states to the Atlantic Coast and south to the Gulf of Mexico.

Most of the big wind farms would be concentrated off the Atlantic Coast in federal waters from Massachusetts to North Carolina and on land in Midwest states from North Dakota to Nebraska and into Kansas.

Many states already require utilities to produce a portion of their electricity from renewable energy sources, but a federal mandate covering all utilities nationwide would help create the 20 percent wind scenario, Corbus said.

Sen. Byron Dorgan said on Tuesday he thought the Senate would forgo dealing with climate change legislation this year after going through the contentious health care debate and instead focus on passing an energy bill that, in part, requires U.S. utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2021.


********************************************


British engineers slam home wind turbines as 'eco-bling'




(AFP)
January 20, 2010



LONDON — Installing wind turbines and solar panels in people's homes is "eco-bling" that will not help meet Britain's targets on cutting carbon emissions, engineers warned Wednesday.

In a new report by the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE), Professor Doug King said it was better to adapt buildings to make them more energy efficient than try to offset energy use with "on-site renewable energy generation."

The leader of Britain's main opposition Conservative party, David Cameron, is among those who have installed wind turbines, fixing one onto the roof of his home in the plush west London district of Notting Hill.

"Eco-bling is a term I coined to describe unnecessary renewable energy visibly attached to the outside of poorly designed buildings," King told the Daily Mail newspaper ahead of the report's publication.

"It achieves little or nothing. If you build a building that is just as energy-hungry as every other building, and you put a few wind turbines and solar panels on the outside that addresses a few percent of that building's energy consumption, you have not achieved anything.

"It's just about trying to say to the general public that 'I'm being good, I'm putting renewable energy on my building'."

In existing buildings, which account for the vast majority of those in use in 2050, King suggested low cost alternatives such as installing thermostats on central heating systems or using low-energy light bulbs.

The report said it was also vital to engineer buildings to minimise energy demands in the first place, including using masonry to store heat or ensuring a good use of natural light in homes and offices.

"Before renewable energy generation is even considered it is vital to ensure that buildings are as energy efficient as possible, otherwise the potential benefits are simply wasted in offsetting unnecessary consumption," it said.

However, it warned a lack of skills in understanding energy use in buildings meant the construction industry would struggle to meet government targets to make all new buildings "zero carbon" by 2020.













windy

California Addresses the Serious Power Crisis: No Big Screen TVs

The PROBLEM is not entirely - what we use it on ... and these measures - no big screen TVs will eventually lead to licensing of computers in your home and an assessment of use fee's if you have more than 1.  Why?  On the pretense of energy conservation and ...

The problem though is not that 30 million citizens of California are using electricity - although that is an issue.  The problem is the millions of illegals who use electricity, thus taking away from the opportunity of those who are citizens to enjoy what we possess, further - the need to build more power plants.  How many power plants have been constructed in the last 40 years, yet our population has nearly doubled.

THAT is the issue, not big screen TVs (as much as they suck the power up and are silly after a certain point).




California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzling big-screen TVs

Industry lobbying efforts appear to elicit little sympathy from the state Energy Commission, which may vote as soon as Nov. 4.



By Marc Lifsher
October 14, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento


The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

The association's views weren't shared by everyone in the TV business. Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.

"We're comfortable with our ability to meet the proposed levels and implementation dates," said Kenneth R. Lowe, Vizio's co-founder and vice president.

Last month, the commission formally unveiled its proposal to require manufacturers to limit television energy consumption in a way that has been done with refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s.

"We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy," said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. "This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs."

Tightening efficiency ratings by using new technology and materials should result in "zero increase in cost to consumers," said Harinder Singh, an Energy Commission staffer on the TV regulation project.

California's estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, the Energy Commission staff reported. But manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate.

New features, such as light-emitting diodes that consume tiny amounts of power, special reflective films and sensors that automatically adjust TV brightness to a room's viewing conditions, are driving down electricity consumption, experts said.

The payoff could be big for TV owners, said Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer. Average first-year savings from reduced electricity use would be an estimated $30 per set and $912 million statewide, he said.

If all TVs met state standards, Rider added, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant. Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.

Consumer Electronics Assn. officials disputed that figure, arguing that it was based on out-of-date numbers that fail to account for recent industry innovations. "With voluntary compliance, manufacturers can meet the targets over time, managing the cost impact, yet not in any way impeding innovation," said Seth Greenstein, an association consultant.








 
 
 
 
energy

We the People ... need to be punished and then reeducated.

Revealing.

We, the American people, are children and need to be TAUGHT by Obama. Why? Because he and his cohorts are so much better than we are, so much brighter, better, educated than we, the American people. If they are so busy educating us, is it WE the PEOPLE who are in charge or is it them, the bureucrats.






September 21, 2009
WSJ


Steven Chu: Americans Are Like ‘Teenage Kids’ When It Comes to Energy


By Ian Talley


When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sees Americans as unruly teenagers and the Administration as the parent that will have to teach them a few lessons.

Speaking on the sidelines of a smart grid conference in Washington, Dr. Chu said he didn’t think average folks had the know-how or will to to change their behavior enough to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” (In that case, the Energy Department has a few renegade teens of its own.)

The administration aims to teach them—literally. The Environmental Protection Agency is focusing on real children. Partnering with the Parent Teacher Organization, the agency earlier this month launched a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach students about climate change and energy efficiency.


[To read the rest of the article, click on the title link.]










energuy

Biofuels - Human Cost

The trouble with liberals is they feel - they feel an imperative to save the environment and will do so using bio-fuel (as one source), but like every other progressive idea, a little good comes with a great deal of harm. Harm that liberals are unable, or unwilling to foresee, when they are plotting out the safety to planet earth using biofuels.

Interesting that people, reasonably bright I am sure, so passionate, myopic, and blinded by the desire to save the planet that they fail to understand what they are creating is worse than the problem they seek to remedy. Time and again this has been the case. From the US to Australia to Europe. And the people suffer. That's the good thing about liberals - they don't need to worry about human suffering, they just have to feel they are doing their best.

We know that ethanol is dangerous to the atmosphere and in case of some pollutants, more deadly than petroleum based fuels.

We also know the human cost of biofuels has not even begun to get exposure ... until the article in the LA Times on June 16, 2008.




Human Cost of Brazil's biofuels boom
by Patrick J. McDonnell

[...]

More than 300,000 farmworkers are seasonal cane cutters in Brazil, the government says. By most accounts, their work and living conditions range from basic to deplorable to outright servitude.

[...]

at least 18 cane cutters have died of dehydration, heart attacks or other ailments linked to exhaustion in this region

[...]

In its annual report, Amnesty International last month highlighted the plight of Brazil's biofuel workers, more than 1,000 of whom were rescued in June 2007 after allegedly being held in slave-like conditions at a plantation owned by a major ethanol producer, Pagrisa, in the Amazonian state of Para.

[...]

Brazilian officials acknowledge that fines and prosecutions have largely failed to improve the workers' lot. Cases drag on in court until sanctions are reduced or owners cleared. Few, if any, violators go to jail. Too few inspectors are available to police this giant country and its behemoth agribusiness, which have made it a world leader in exports of soybeans, beef and coffee, among other foodstuffs.








Brazil




Human cost




biofuel

Oil - Imports

These stats are a couple months old, but within 1% are probably very close to the actual figures for today.

Obamessiah followers should pay particular attention as should the Losercrats.

100% of the oil we use in the United States comes from a barrel.

Of the 100%, the United States produces a certain amount of our own oil. We therefore, do not import 100% of the oil we use. We currently import a little more than 60% of the oil we use.

So where does it come from, this oil we use.

OPEC COUNTRIES provide: 43% of the oil we use 173,000 barrels.
NON OPEC COUNTRIES provide: 57% of the oil we use. 227,000 barrels.

NON OPEC (top 4):
Canada 20% close to 80,000 barrels.
Venezuela 10%
Mexico 10%
Nigeria 9%


From Iraq, we receive 3% of our oil.
In 1999, we received 5% of our oil from Iraq. 2% more oil BEFORE the war.

From Saudi Arabia, we were, as of April 2008, getting 44,000 barrels.

Canada and non-Opec countries are more significant than OPEC. NON MIDDLE EASTERN countries play a larger role than Middle Eastern countries and their oil.








oil




Middle East

Obamessiah - Agent for ... Status Quo

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

In the heart of the Corn Belt that August day, Mr. Obama argued that embracing ethanol “ultimately helps our national security, because right now we’re sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth.” America’s oil dependence, he added, “makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating security for the long term.”

NY Times, June 23, 2008

***********************************


Dear Senator,

The issue is not that your advisers or staff have deep ties to the ethanol industry, nor that you are receiving large donations from this industry, rather, it is your hypocrisy and the idiocy of your Obamessiah followers.

There is no difference between the constituency of ethanol and that of oil, but for money. Oil groups lobby as do ethanol groups. Both donate, but for amounts.

And Senator, ethanol is demonstrably more problematic for the environment, and it is and will cause worldwide starvation. Given your desire to repair relations with the world, why would you put us on the road to causing worldwide starvation? More importantly, why make us dependent upon a crop that is dependent upon water, droughts, storms, snow, and other weather conditions. Why commit us to a fuel source that puts more dangerous pollutants into the atmosphere than petroleum based fuels. Why. Why claim it makes us more independent when you have already authored and supported a bill that would require the US to pay nearly $1 trillion dollars to lift the poor of the world above poverty, when this very fuel source will cause starvation and poverty, while raising all food prices causing food issues in the United States.

You have not thought through your plan Senator and the world cannot afford to have someone in the White House who could cause global starvation and death because he wants to make the US independent of foreign oil.

It goes without saying Senator, there are ways to make us independent without starving the world and many Americans, raising the costs of everything including fuel, and destroying our economy.

1) Allow drilling off the coast of the United States, in the same areas other countries are drilling, let American companies drill.
2) Allow American companies to drill in the Rocky Mountain areas, provide tax breaks, to extract and refine oil from the shale.
3) Allow drilling in ANWAR.
4) Urge an increase in exports from the number one oil exporter to the US - Canada.
5) Urge an increase in exports from the number two oil exporter to the US - Mexico.
6) Change the laws which allow the speculation on oil. Senator Nelson told a TV audience that oil executives before a Senate committee, told the committee that oil should be, based on demand, around $55-60 a barrel. The head of OPEC has said oil should be trading at or around those same dollar figures per barrel.
7) Permit faster construction (albeit, they must meet standards) of at least three new refineries, in areas not prone to hurricanes or earthquakes, and get them up and running within your first term.
8) Permit construction of at least ten nuclear power plants and get them all online within your first term.

Do the above, and we will be energy independent - off all oil in the Middle East, within 4-5 years. Why am I so sure - the same reason you know we can be - the facts: We get over 50% of our oil from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. If we pump more oil ourselves, extract oil from shale (according to geology reports from the last five to ten years ago, oil needed to be around $70-75 a barrel to make it financially feasible and oil is way past that figure), by doing so we could have the largest oil reserves in the world at over several trillion barrels available. Build nuclear plants to reduce home and industry needs for petroleum. More refineries to put more gas on the market - especially given the propensity of companies to shut them all down about the same time, or incur an accident at key facilities every couple years. Do it and we will be independent of ALL Middle Eastern oil, of OPEC. In fact, work to break up OPEC. Get Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela, and Brazil to work together as an American counter weight to OPEC.

Play around with some ethanol and raise gas taxes and maybe do one other... and you will only continue to prove why you should stay in the Senate. We need a full court change.









oil



energy


ethanol


fuel


independence

Liberals are dangerous to your health

At least if you are Israel.

I believe Kucinich is one of the most dense and ignorant / traitorous people I have had to endure reading about or listening to. However, there are some pretty dumb people, and Charley Reese qualifies as one of the most dense, yet not the most dense.

Superficiality is fine for Hollywood, and everyone knows that - we all makes jokes about how superficial people are, yet some really dense people go around repeating that same behavior without recognizing it as such. take for example Charley Reese's rambling idiocy from June 7.

I have pasted the parts below from the idiocy located at the link listed above.

His post is in RED and mine in GREEN

Which country in the Middle East actually possesses nuclear weapons?
Israel.

Too simple, Charley. Superficial in fact. There is no absolute proof that Israel has nuclear weapons. But, we all know they do. Your question presupposes an answer which is in fact, NOT in fact or evidence - although, we are pretty sure they have quite a few.




Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel.

Again Charley, an intellectually dishonest question. You beg the question with this one, and honestly - a non sequitor. Who the fuck cares Charley and what difference does it make. The Solomon Islands are not a signatory to the treaty either. Neither is Equatorial Guinea. Do you know how bloody idiotic your question is - assume you ask Micronesia what the tentative date will be for their intergalactic exploration team to assume control of earth's planetary defenses. Beyond the implausible nature of the question in so far as intergalactic issues is concerned, what else might be slightly far fetched? The fact Micronesia would ever, as long as Earth exists, be the controlling power.

Now, back to the Middle East - 14 Arab countries who do not have nuclear weapons and until the mid 1990s, could never consider it possible to ever get nuclear weapons, of course they bloody well signed it - they don't have any, and the one country they really hate and want to destroy - does have, and if by signing they could push Israel into a corner and drive support away from Israel into their corner, they would sign their first-borns over to Satan. Besides, if and when they do begin nuclear programs, they will of course say they are only doing it for energy - and fools like you will oblige them, until the day they pop out with a weapon, and fools like you will be aghast that they lied to you, and they will publicly restate their support for non-proliferation - once they have their nukes. And fools like you will believe them, for it is too convenient.


Which country in the Middle East refuses to allow international inspections of its nuclear facilities?
Israel.

When 14 Arab states, and over 40 total, go to bed each night dreaming and wishing for your removal off planet earth - I would never show anyone what I had either, for at that time it would force me to abide by programs and policies and inspections that could and would threaten your security, for the agency that oversees nuclear issues is dominated by pro-Arab / anti-Israeli countries. Imagine the issues if Israel admitted it had weapons. Tomorrow the UN would demand Israel comply, let in inspectors. if Israel failed to oblige, the UN would put sanctions on Israel, forcing the EU and individual European countries to stop all trade with Israel ($50 billion a year between imports and exports). If Israel complied, enemies of Israel would know the location of every weapon and its size. This would be of immense help to the Arab states that wish to destroy Israel. People like you would be leading that charge.

By the way - letting someone in, doesn't mean you show them anything. Saddam is the best example. Iran now, the IAEA admits Iran has tricked them and will not show everything they have.

Showing doesn't mean telling the truth. Are you all show - superficiality.


Which countries in the Middle East have called for the region to be a nuclear-free zone?
The Arab countries and Iran.

Puhleeze. The IAEA has admitted that Iran's nuclear program is not what we are shown and told. They are hiding elements. the only people who refuse to understand this are fools like yourself.

Again, anyone who doesn't have a nuke wants to ensure a nuclear free zone. Once they get one, they will never give it up AND you can't make them.

The world is now very concerned about Iran. The world knows Iran is not building the plants for energy only. That for Iran, possession of a nuclear weapon is the only way to be taken seriously. The history of Iran is one of pride and history - a great empire that after 1979 was ignored by the world. These acolytes of death want respect and for them respect comes with weapons. The bigger the better. They looked around the world at the super powers - each has nuclear weapons. They want weapons.

Syria was in the early stages. Egypt has made several statements that make it clear their interest in nuclear energy. Saudi Arabia wants nuclear power.

And from the nuclear waste - weapons.

I can sign any treaty - it means nothing, especially if the party signing does not accept the laws or rules of the West. Their rules do not bind them to contracts signed with Westerners, unless it suits them.

Which country in the Middle East occupies land belonging to other people?
Israel, which occupies a piece of Lebanon, a larger piece of Syria, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.

As of 2005, Israel pulled every soldier out of Gaza. Since that day, an average of ten rockets have been fired, each day, into Israel from Gaza.

Jerusalem, for the simple minded, was Jewish, and at one time, controlled by the Christians. It was not until the 8th century that Muslims took the city. before the Christians. To be honest, Christians should retake what they controlled.

Take a little piece of truth, ignore the facts, and then throw in untruths. The habit of the left, especially when it comes to Israel.



Which country in the Middle East has for 60 years refused to allow refugees to return to their homes and refused to consider compensation to them for their lost property?
Israel.

Over 700,000 Jews were forced from their lands in Arab countries at the same time - those countries refuse to let them return and get their property back, yet the only Jewish state should let non-Jews take control of Israel. Do you honestly believe what you are writing, or is your hate so short-sighted you cannot understand what you espouse.


Which country has roads on which citizens who are Arab may not drive and housing developments where Arabs may not live?
Israel.

And Arabs in Israel can vote, hold seats in the legislature, and live better and more productive lives than the average Arab in any Arab country, where Jews do not have such rights. The claim is also false, but for areas around specific places.



I grow weary of anti-Semitic people using the cover of Arab/Israeli issues to disperse their anti-Jewish rhetoric. It is hateful and vile, it is a lie. That is the larger issue Charley, that you are a liar.


**********************

Update:

IAEA:

Mohamed ElBaradei: "If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has..."

Interviewer: "How much time would it need?"

ElBaradei: "It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon."

Interviewer: "Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months..."

ElBaradei: "Or one year, at least..."

Interviewer: "... to produce [nuclear] weapons?"

ElBaradei: "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon." [...]















dumb shits


fucking morons idiots and shitheads

China and Coal

According to News.com.au, China is down to 12 days worth of coal. It has 12 days worth of consumption, three days less than a month ago - that according to Chinese state media.

China relies on coal for about 70% of its energy demand.

On several levels that is so bad.

Coal is MUCH worse than gasoline on the environment.
All the thousands who work in the coal mines and or shoveling it ... many without masks.

But with a population of 1.3 billion - China doesn't care.