Here's more of the relevant part of this story:

Nuclear has a larger carbon footprint than either hydro or wind power according to a report prepared for the UK Parliament, see, "The Carbon Footprint of Electrical Power Generation", http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/...

Hydro Hydropower converts the energy from flowing water, via turbines and generators, into electricity. There are two main types of hydroelectric schemes; storage and run-of-river. Storage schemes require dams. In run-of-river schemes, turbines are placed in the natural flow of ariver. Once in operation, hydro schemes emit very little CO2, although some methane emissions do arise due to decomposition of flooded vegetation. Storage schemes have a higher footprint, (10-30gCO2eq/kWh), than run-of-river schemes as they require large amounts of raw materials (steel and concrete) to construct the dam.9Run-of-river schemes have very small reservoirs (those with weirs) or none at all so do not give rise to significant emissions during their operation. Carbon footprints for this type of hydro scheme are some of the lowest of all electricity generation technologies (<5gCO2eq/kWh).

Wind Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the lowest carbon footprints. As with other low carbon technologies, nearly all the emissions occur during the manufacturing and construction phases, arising from the production of steel for the tower, concrete for the foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades.10These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2emissions. Emissions generated during operation of wind turbines arise from routine maintenance inspection trips. This includes use of lubricants and transport. Onshore wind turbines are accessed by vehicle, while offshore turbines are maintained using boats and helicopters. The manufacturing process for both onshore and offshore wind plant is very similar, so life cycle assessment shows that there is little difference between the carbon footprint of onshore (4.64gCO2eq/kWh) versus offshore (5.25gCO2eq/kWh) wind generation (Fig 2).11 The footprint of an offshore turbine is marginally greater because it requires larger foundations.

Nuclear Nuclear power generation has a relatively small carbon footprint (5gCO2eq/kWh) (Fig 2). Since there is no combustion, (heat is generated by fission of uranium or plutonium), operational CO2emissions account for <1% of the total. Most emissions occur during uranium mining, enrichment and fuel fabrication. Decommissioning accounts for 35% of the lifetime CO2emissions, and includes emissions arising from dismantling the nuclear plant and the construction and maintenance of waste storage facilities.12The most energy intensive phase of the nuclear cycle is uranium extraction, which accounts for 40% of the total CO2emissions. Some commentators have suggested that if global nuclear generation capacityincreases, higher grade uranium ore deposits would be depleted, requiring use of lower grade ores. This has raised concerns that the carbon footprint of nuclear generation may increase in the future (see Issues)

Mark

so there might still be a net gain over the energy expended in triggering the fusion reaction.

The mechanical, heat, and friction losses in a conventional nuclear steam generation plant are pretty substantial, but they are feasible because no external energy source is required to start a fission reaction. The laser fusion prototype requires a huge input of energy to start the reaction.

Plus, with this sort of pulse fusion reactor there's the problem of containment of the explosion as this thing gets scaled up. How do you safely contain a hydrogen bomb, even a small one? How many cycles before the container vessel has to be replaced? What do you do with the radioactive container vessel? Some of the same waste disposal issues as a conventional plant.

We're still a long way from economically feasible commercial applications, and I know what's in the back of everyone's mind - we're still a long way from a pulse fusion reactor for space travel, although it may actually be a better application than electrical generation, as one could theoretically just hang a reactor way, way back behind lots of shielding with a rear-directed outlet (magnetic nozzle), to get a pulse reaction drive. A starship with such a propulsion system have been termed "torchships."


Theoretically, they are capable of sustained 1 g acceleration for many, many years. Long enough to get to a near-light speed velocity with a practical possibility of human flight to nearby star systems. Because time "slows down" according to the relativistic constant the closer one gets to the speed of light, one could travel enormous distances in a perceived period of only a few years, as illustrated by the following equation. 6.58 years (crew perceived time) to get to Vega (27 light years away):

From The Relativistic Rocket in the Usenet Physics FAQ
In the following equations, note that a*T/c = (Ve / c) * ln(R)
Time elapsed (in Terra's frame of reference)

t = (c/a) * Sinh (given acceleration and proper time)

t = (c/a) * Sinh<(Ve / c) * ln(R)> (to expend all propellant, given exhaust velocity and mass ratio)

t = sqrt<(d/c)2 + (2*d/a)> (given acceleration and distance)
Distanced traveled (in Terra's frame of reference)

d = (c2/a) * (Cosh - 1) (given acceleration and proper time)

d = (c2/a) * (Cosh<(Ve / c) * ln(R)> - 1) (when all propellant is expended, given exhaust velocity and mass ratio)

d = (c2/a) (Sqrt<1 + (a*t/c)2> - 1) (given acceleration and Terra time)
Final Velocity (in Terra's frame of reference)

v = c * Tanh (given acceleration and proper time)

Δv = c * Tanh<(Ve / c) * ln(R)> (given exhaust velocity and mass ratio)

v = (a*t) / Sqrt<1 + (a*t/c)2> (given acceleration and Terra time)
Time elapsed (in starship's frame of reference, "Proper time")

T = (c/a) * ArcSinh (given acceleration and Terra time)

T = (c/a) * ArcCosh (given acceleration and distance)
Gamma factor

γ = Cosh (given acceleration and proper time)

γ = Cosh<(Ve / c) * ln(R)> (given exhaust velocity and mass ratio)

γ = Sqrt<1 + (a*t/c)2> (given acceleration and Terra time)

γ = a*d/(c2) + 1 (given acceleration and distance)
where
a = acceleration (m/s2) remember that 1 g = 9.81 m/s2
T = Proper Time, the slowed down time experienced by the crew of the rocket (s)
t = time experienced non-accelerating frame of reference in which they started (e.g., Terra) (s)
d = distance covered as measured in Terra's frame of reference (m)
v = final speed as measured in Terra's frame of reference (m/s)
c = speed of light in a vacuum = 3e8 m/s
Δv = rocket's total deltaV (m/s)
Ve = propulsion system's exhaust velocity (m/s)
R = rocket's mass ratio (dimensionless number)
γ = gamma, the time dilation factor (dimensionless number)
Sqrt = square root of x
ln = natural logarithm of x
Sinh = hyperbolic Sine of x
Cosh = hyperbolic Cosine of x
Tanh = hyperbolic Tangent of x
The hyperbolic trigonometric functions should be present on a scientific calculator and available as functions in a spreadsheet.

In many cases it will be more convenient to have T and t in years, distance in light-years, c = 1 lyr/yr, and 1 g = 1.03 lyr/yr2.

Here are some typical results with a starship accelerating at one gravity.
T Proper time elapsed t Terra time elapsed d Distance v Final velocity γ Gamma
1 year 1.19 years 0.56 lyrs 0.77c 1.58
2 3.75 2.90 0.97 3.99
5 83.7 82.7 0.99993 86.2
8 1,840 1,839 0.9999998 1,895
12 113,243 113,242 0.99999999996 116,641

Of course, as a general rule starships want to slow down and stop at their destinations, not zip past them at 0.9999 of the speed of light. You need a standard torchship brachistochrone flight plan: accelerate to halfway, skew flip, then decelerate to the destination (which makes sense, since such starships will have to be torchships). To use the above equations, instead of using the full distance for d, divide the distance in half and use that instead. Run that through the equations, then take the resulting T or t and double it.

Example: The good scout starship Peek-A-Boo is doing a 1 g brachistochrone for Vega, which is 27 light-years away. Half of that is 13.5 light-years. How long will the journey be from the crew's standpoint (the proper time) ?
T = (c/a) * ArcCosh
T = (1/1.03) * ArcCosh<1.03 * 13.5 / (12) + 1>
T = 0.971 * ArcCosh<13.9 / 1 + 1>
T = 0.971 * ArcCosh<13.9 + 1>
T = 0.971 * ArcCosh<14.9>
T = 0.971 * 3.39
T = 3.29 years
That's the crew time to the skew flip. The total time is twice this
T = 3.29 * 2
T = 6.58 years

The role of the Senate Parliamentarian is advisory. It takes 60 Senators to support an objection raised by the Parliamentarian to overrule the VP. Biden can basically craft the Bills he wants - including the budget lines that need to be reconciled with the House version of a Bill, the Committee that returns a reconciled Bill, and the time frame for reporting back the amended Senate Bill.

It's up to the White House on this.

Okay. We tried it their way. For six months, we handed the Senate Health Care Reform Bill to the "Gang of Six" conservative centrists in the name of bi-partisanship. Had it not been for the decision to hand it all over to that little centrist bloc last July, we would have had Senate Bill with a Public Option by Reconciliation before the August Recess.

What did we get for playing nice with the Blue Dogs? Six wasted months - no Public Option, no prescription drug re-importation, no anti-trust enforcement against the Health Insurance industry, a mandate on individuals to buy private insurance, and a ban on private insurance pools to cover abortions. Now, add to that, Democrats have lost elections in MA, VA, and NJ. Are you seeing a pattern developing here?

This is what happens when you rig the process to keep conservative, old-guard senior members at the levers of power. We didn't have to do it this way. When the Blue Dogs barked, Harry Reid and White House rolled over. The Bill could have been taken out of the paws of Max Baucus and the Finance Committee, and passed by Reconciliation by as few as 50 Democratic votes plus the Vice President. But, there was a failure of political will.

The result was a Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln Blue Dog Health Care Bill. All the progressive "good stuff" was stripped out. No wonder insurance industry stocks began skyrocketing. Wall Street is lovin' it. The Tea Baggers are lovin' it - the Democratic Right-wing is doing what they couldn't - destroying the best chance for broad reform in 15 years. Again. But, the rest of America doesn't seem to like what they're seeing, and are punishing the Democratic Party for that. We're going to lose our Majorities and the White House if this continues.

How does the Democratic Party get out of this cesspool we've dug for ourselves?

Start by rolling heads in a very public way. First head on the block is Joe Momentum - strip him of his Homeland Security Committee Chair and caucus privileges. Do it quickly. Threaten to do the same thing to any Democratic Senator who votes against split Health Care Reform (HCR) and Health Insurance Reform (HIR) Bills. Separate out the votes on several key issues so everyone can see exactly where each Senator stands. Put Obama and Biden up front of a new HCR Bill and do the thing quickly.

Those Democrats who go against their Party should be marched to the guillotines.

A fascinating figure, part Dashiell Hammett character, part Red-Baiting McCarthyite super snoop and GOP opposition researcher, Chotiner was a product of LA of the 1940s. Completely ruthless, he met his end one day in January 1974 sitting in a sedan parked beside the road next to the McLean, VA Kennedy Compound with a line of sight to the room where Ted Kennedy took his calls and received guests. Too bad he had chosen to park in the very spot that a large, speeding truck would also momentarily occupy. Fitting end for one of America's most shadowy political operatives.


Murray Grilled About Defense Contracting Fraud (1950s) ; Lucianne in Her Honey Trap Days (1960s)

Kinda like Pat Sajak

The Virginia Pilot newspaper identifies one of the dead in the suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan as Jeremy Wise, an employee of Xe/Blackwater. Wise was killed with six other Americans identified as CIA officers or contractors. http://hamptonroads.com/2010/01/exseal-kil...

It appears from reports that this Xe contractor, along with two other guards working for the same private security firm, may have failed to pat down the bomber, resulting in the deaths of themselves and several CIA officers.

Here's the most complete account that I could find of what happened that identifies the roles of the victims. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/u...



NOTE: In point of fact, the bomber was actually not a Pakistani, but a Jordanian doctor with Jihadist ties, recruited through Jordanian Intelligence, who is now described by U.S. intelligence as an al-Qaeda double agent.

The fact that guards admitted the informant without patting him for weapons or explosives has been confirmed in other reports, including a Military Times story that states that three Xe guards were among the casualties, none of whom apparently thought to search the informant before letting him into a room crowded with CIA intelligence officers flown especially for the occasion: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/01/... /

working for him.

The parallels extend further than recent reports that Prince was a paid CIA agent. The top people at Blackwater were CIA managers that ran al-Qaeda as an Agency asset until 9/11. Before he headed a Blackwater subsidiary, Cofer Black was CIA Chief of Station in Khartoum in the mid-1990s at the time that bin Laden, Abu Zubaydeh, KSM and many of the other principal 9/11 plotters were running CIA-assisted paramilitary operations against the Russians from bases in Sudan. Black has admitted in Congressional testimony that he had met bin Laden there at the time. You can draw your own conclusions about whether Black was UBL's control officer, but it has to at least be considered as a possibility.

After the East Asia Embassy bombings in 1998, Black was brought in from the field by CIA Director George Tenet to head the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CIA/CTC), along with a Tenet protege Richard Blee, with Rob Richer as another Deputy. In late December 1999, the NSA picked up a communication from Nawaf al-Hazmi through an AQ communications center run by al-Hazmi's uncle in Yemen. That communique indicated that a summit meeting of al-Qaeda figures was being convened in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in the first two weeks of January, 2000. The CIA/CTC had ten days to prepare, and started surveillance, including videotape, of that meeting. According to the 9/11 Commission, both the 9/11 Planes Operation and the USS Cole attacks were planned there. CIA Director Tenet was briefed about that meeting. In the second week of January, al-Hazmi and his partner Khalid al-Midhar departed Kuala Lumpur in the company of "Khalad" bin-Atash, who headed bin Laden's personal security detail in Sudan.


COFER BLACK On January 15, 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Midhar entered the US at Los Angeles, and immediately met an air attache working under civilian cover (Dallah-AVCO Air Services) out of the Saudi Consulate in LA, who gave the pair funds from a Riggs Bank account and drove the pair to San Diego, installing them in a rental unit under the supervision of several figures, including a Iman who would end up at the center of another terrorist attack in 2009. The entry of the pair, who would go on to hijack AA Flt 77 that crashed into the Pentagon was noted at CTC, and a warning cable was drafted by the FBI liaison officer, but withheld at the direct order of the CTC Assn't Director, Richard Blee, Cofer Black's No. 2.

Black and Blee ran CTC during the next 20 months that the Flt. 77 hijackers were allowed to run free inside the US, taking flight training and meeting frequently with other 9/11 attack cell members. During that time, the FBI I-49 National Security Unit, under the command of John O'Neill -- which was charged with monitoring AQ inside the US, and had been frustrated in its investigation of the Cole attack - was kept in the dark. O'Neill resigned from the FBI shortly before 9/11, when he was killed during the collapse of the World Trade Center, where he had taken the job as head of security. In the summer of 2001, O'Neill and I-49 officers repeatedly clashed with Black and Blee over the CIA's refusal to turn over CIA files about the attack squads the FBI knew from other sources were plotting attacks inside the US. FBI warrants for electronic surveillance were withheld by ranking figures in Washington.

By July, it was clear what the targets of the hijackers were and the time-frame they would be hit. On the 10th, Tenet, Black, and Blee got into a CIA SUV, and visited National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and had a tense meeting with her about al-Qaeda. According to Tenet, she seemed to understand the threat, but was ambivalent in her response. Finally, in mid August, Tenet got on a CIA jet and visited President Bush in Crawford, where the President had been deposited for safe-keeping since returning in early July from Genoa, where ground-to-air missiles were installed to protect him from suspected al-Qaeda attack by aircraft. Tenet went on to perjure himself before the 9/11 Commission, falsely claiming he had had no communication with Bush during the 60 days before 9/11. In fact, records showed they had talked on at least a dozen occasions, including the face-to-face on either August 15 or 21, the latter date being the day the FBI finally got alerted and some of the details about the entry of al-Hazmi and al-Midhar 19 months earlier.

Black resigned from the CIA in April 2002, after interrogation of Abu Zubaydeh revealed the names of leading Saudi and Pakistani figures who had bankrolled the operation, and after the apparently willful failure of Jawbreaker, the CIA-run operation to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan the previous December. Apparently willful is the watchword for the Bush-Cheney management of this element of the CIA, which went on to run a division of Blackwater, and in the actions of these individuals in failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks and failure to capture top terrorist leaders thereafter.

attacks were actually planned out. The details of the "Planes Operation" were decided at an early January, 2000 al-Qaeda summit meeting convened in a condo off a golf course in Kuala Lumpur. In attendance were a dozen or so of the principle 9/11 hijackers and al-Qaeda leaders, including KSM, Abu Zubaydah, al-Nashiri, Ramzi bin Yusuf and the Flt. 77 hijackers, al-Midhar and al-Hazmi. The NSA had intercepted messages about the meeting, and the CIA tracked the latter two as they traveled to the meeting, videotaping the proceedings and the attendees.

On January 15, 2000, the Flt. 77 hijackers flew into LAX, and a warning cable was drafted at the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center (CIA/CTC), alerting the FBI of their arrival in the U.S. That cable and a subsequent communication to the FBI were withheld, however, at the direct order of CTC Assistant Director, "Rich B" (Richard Blee), presumably at the behest of CTC Director Cofer Black. While that assured that the FBI's National Security Unit in NY -- tasked with tracking al-Qaeda inside the U.S. -- never got the message, Director George Tenet received multiple briefings from Blee and Black about the goings on in Kuala Lumpur and the entry of al-Hazmi and al-Midhar. Tenet briefed President George W. Bush on multiple occasions, including a mid-August surprise trip to Crawford, TX, about multiple al-Qaeda attack cells known to be inside the US planning hijackings and attacks on landmark structures in NY and Washington, DC. But, for some reason that still has yet to be explained, Bush refused to issue the order to unleash the FBI to roll-up the al-Qaeda network.

So, you see, Afghanistan is really not central to the 9/11 attack. If you really wanted to use the military to prevent terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda, we should have invaded Langley, VA and Crawford, TX.

Don't believe the soothing words of the Blue Dog pollsters, big-wigs and other DC smoke screeners. The disastrous defeat of Democratic candidate Craig Deeds in the Virginia Governor's race was not a local thing. Not a flash in the pan, at all. The SCALE of the defeat was certainly not typical. One has to go back more than half a century to find a similar State House massacre in the Old Dominion.

The 60/40 defeat of Deeds is not typical of VA Governor's races. Nor, was the comparatively low Dem turnout. Put the two together, and you have a major event that some of the party leadership don't want you talking about. Here are the numbers that show what happened.

In 2008, Obama received 52.6 percent of the nearly 3.7 million votes cast in Virginia's presidential contest, about 2 million votes. He is now viewed favorably by 44 percent of Virginians, down about 8 percent. By comparison, Deeds polled only 815,000 votes, only 41 percent of the total cast on Tuesday, a mere 40 percent of what Obama received last year. That is a huge drop-off, even considering the lower turnout in the Governor's race compared to the '08 Presidential race.

Historically, VA Governor's races turn out somewhat fewer voters than Presidential contests, averaging about a 15 point difference. The turnout in the state for the '04 and '08 Presidential elections was 62 and 68 percent of the registered voters, while across the state in the 2005 gubernatorial election, turnout was approximately 45 percent. On Tuesday, voter total was about 3 million out of 5.4 million registered voters, 55 percent turnout, which is a relatively high for a Gubenatorial race. Historically low turnouts were in '97, when turnout was about 48 percent of registered voters, the lowest for a Virginia governor's race since 1965. Unfortunately, a disproportionate percentage voted Republican this year for state-wide offices, which is a big change from four years ago when Tim Kaine won with 52 percent, just about the same percentage polled by Mark Warner in 2001.

The last candidate for Virginia governor to win more than 60 percent of the vote was Democrat Albertis S. Harrison Jr., who in 1961 won 63.8 percent.

Lessons learned from VA - 1) turn on the base or the Dems will lose more elections; 2) this was not a typical VA election by recent standards. Lots of Republicans turned out, while Democratic-leaning voters didn't. The reason is obvious - Democratic candidates lose when they run toward the almighty center-right, and the Progressive base doesn't turn out the vote.

The Blue Dog strategy of steering toward the center-right is now a proven election-loser. As the GOP has shown, keeping the base mobilized wins elections - only a Progressive agenda, of the type that Obama promised, will mobilize the Democratic Party. He and a new set of Democratic leaders must deliver, or we are sunk.

If the Dem leadership continues on this course, we will lose again, and again, until we are once more the minority party in America. I am beginning to believe that is all that the DLC types know how to be or even want to be. They're Losers, yet again.

I want my atomic car, now!