As The World Burns

During her campaign for the Democratic nomination for President, Hillary Clinton warned us about that “3 am phone call” at the White House. I’m not sure Hillary would have been a better choice, but her concerns were certainly well founded.

Hillary Clinton was not the only person to express serious doubts about the qualifications of the man who eventually became our 44th President. Countless people expressed reservations about his total lack of leadership experience. Naturally his supporters ridiculed anyone who dared to express those doubts, and dismissed us as bigoted racists who only opposed the man because he was black and had a Muslim sounding name.

Fast forward to the present and Barack Obama is now President of the United States, leader of the free world. Well, perhaps ‘leader’ is the wrong word to use. Unfortunately, President Obama seems to subscribe to John Naisbitt’s idea that “Leadership involves finding a parade and getting in front of it”.

President Obama began his term in office by telegraphing to the world that, under his watch, the United States would no long be a source of strength and stability. As he bowed his way through his apology tour, he made it clear that he would be more than happy to relinquish the title of ‘leader of the free world’ to whomever the despots at the U.N. decided to elect.

It isn’t hard to see the effect this has had on the world. The Middle East is coming apart at the seams. Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen have all experienced serious unrest to one degree or another. Even China has had to deal with protestors. Israel is once again under attack from Islamists that seek to use the conflict to ignite the highly combustible region. North Korea, a serious source of problems in itself, has been caught on several occasions supplying weapons to the known troublemakers in the region, and we cannot be sure they have not succeeded in supplying one or more of them with nuclear weapons. Japan is still reeling from their triple disasters, and the world economy is still teetering on the brink of collapse.

President Obama’s response to these events has been notably lacking in clarity and substance. Instead of meeting with our allies and forging a strong coalition of nations with a clear, cohesive strategy to deal with these issues, he sent Hillary Clinton to deal with it while he jetted off to Rio for a “working” vacation with his family. When asked if going to Rio was appropriate thing for the President to do during the crisis in Japan, the White House spokesman Jay Carney said “It bears repeating that this is a crisis – there is no question about it. And it is a crisis in Japan. It is not a crisis in the United States.” The leadership was positively oozing from that statement.

Recently Congress had to pass a continuing resolution to extend funding to operate our government for three more weeks. This was necessary because President Obama and the Congressional Democrats failed in their responsibility to pass a budget. Just this week an official with the Federal Reserve warned that if we continue on our present course, the country will become insolvent. Instead of taking the reins and leading our nation through our own budget problems, President Obama delegated the task to Joe Biden who promptly left the country on his own junket in Russia.

As the world burns, Barack Obama is working on his golf game between vacations. Naturally, we are reminded of Nero, who famously fiddled while Rome burned. It is important to remember that Nero started those fires, but that is fodder for another discussion.

It is a fact that Obama is the President and will remain in that position for the next two years. Although he is gaining experience each day, there is little chance that he will develop the leadership skills he needs. Frankly, it is a fact that we will simply have to live the choice we made in 2008.

As we head into the 2012 election process, we need to learn from that mistake. Bill Clinton taught us that that character counts, and it is now obvious that leadership and experience are important as well. After four years of Barack Obama, we can be sure that the world will be in a mess when the next President takes office, and he or she will have to hit the ground running. As we consider the potential candidates for the Republican nomination, we need to be sure that the person we choose is ready to lead from day one.

What Will You Do?

On the morning of Friday, March 11, 2011, the citizens of Sendai, Japan got out of bed and started their daily routines just like you and I did this morning. At 2:47 that afternoon however, everything changed. Although Japan is no stranger to earthquakes, the temblor that struck was the strongest in recorded history, enough to move the coastline eight feet closer to the United States. A short time later, a thirty foot wall of water washed over the coast, destroying homes, and sweeping survivors of the quake out to sea. The survivors found themselves living in a world unlike anything they had ever imagined.

Everywhere they looked were scenes of utter destruction. Bodies of those who did not survive littered the streets, if streets were even visible. Buildings were destroyed or even completely missing. Cars and trucks were scattered like cast off toys, and even ships were lying on dry land. In less than a few hours, all the trappings of modern civilization were completely and utterly ruined.

To make matters worse, word soon came that several nuclear power plants in the region were experiencing emergencies, and now radiation and radioactive contamination have become added worries for the survivors. Just to add insult to injury, the weather has turned cold and snow has been falling on the region.

As we sit in our living rooms watching these scenes play out on our televisions, our hearts go out to those who are living this nightmare in real time. Few of us could imagine what it would be like to find ourselves in such dire circumstances. This disaster movie has just become Reality TV.

The victims of this triple disaster had no warning, and are doing their best to cope with what has been thrown at them. I must say that I am inspired and encouraged by the way they have handled the situation. Despite all that has happened, we have not seen reports of widespread panic, looting, or crime in even the hardest hit areas. The Japanese people have set a clear example of how to maintain your humanity in the face of total devastation.

While these images are still fresh in our minds, it would be wise for us to give serious thought to how we would cope with a situation such as this. Until a few days ago, few in this country would believe that their world could undergo such a drastic change in such a short period of time; but we must now face the fact that it can.

Most Americans live far enough away from the sea that a tsunami is not a concern, but there are many other dangers that we cannot ignore. Just this week, astronomers spotted a previously unnoticed asteroid that passed very close to the earth less than a day later. The super-volcano that lies quietly beneath Yellowstone National Park could someday erupt with a force 1,000 times that of the Mt. Saint Helens eruption. Everyday, terrorists are plotting ways to carryout nuclear attacks against the United States. It would be foolish to believe that we cannot find ourselves in similar circumstances.

The question then is how do we prepare for something so devastating that our civilization totally breaks down, either on a local level, nationwide, or perhaps even globally?
Knowing the right answer to that question is about as difficult as knowing what the next major disaster will be. There are of course, some basic steps we can take to help us through the more mundane disasters. Stocking up on non-perishable food items is a good place to start. Keeping a well stocked first aid kit is advisable as well. Owning a backup generator is a good idea, and a supply of emergency candles would be good to have for when the generator isn’t running.

These basic preparations however, will only help during a relatively minor and short-lived crisis. Due to space limitations, most people would only be able to keep food on hand to last a few weeks, and fuel for a generator must be kept fresh so maintaining a long term supply is difficult. In a situation where the basic preparations are not likely to suffice, knowledge will become the most important preparation you can make.

Since even a well stocked pantry won’t last forever, knowing how to produce your own food would be invaluable. Gardening, usually viewed as a hobby, would become a matter of long-term survival. Since refrigeration is a luxury that would probably not be available, knowing how to can the food you produce could be the only thing standing between your family and starvation.

Electricity is something we all take for granted, but it is usually the first luxury we lose in an emergency. While backup generators can get you by for awhile, they will only last as long as the fuel supply holds up. Depending on where you live, other alternative sources of electrical power might be available, such as wind or solar, but few of us will have access to that kind of equipment. The simplest fix then, would be to know how to live without the benefit of electricity at all. Give some thought to what you use electricity for, and how you would adapt to life without it.

Water is obviously another very important consideration. When the kitchen faucet runs dry, what do you do? Do you have an alternative supply, and is that supply clean and safe? If not, how do you make it safe? If you have your own well, how will you get the water out of the ground with no electricity?

Do you know first aid? Can you splint a broken bone or stop bleeding? You may not be able to call 911 for help; you need to know how to do these things. What about medicine; do you have a good supply of the prescription medicines you take? What will you do when the supply runs out?

There are many other things to consider, and much to do in preparation of such an event. Obviously, you can’t do everything at once, and no one is ever fully prepared for all possibilities. One thing is certain however, the time to start preparing is not immediately after disaster strikes.

Nuclear Power 101

As we all watch the terrible tragedy that is still unfolding in Japan, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Most are understandably concerned however, about the dangers associated with the emergency situations that are underway at several of Japan’s nuclear facilities.

Many years ago I was a member of the U.S. Navy, serving as a Nuclear Field Electrician in the Submarine Service, and worked as an operator on three different nuclear power plants. One plant was a shore based facility in upstate New York, and the other two were submarine based plants. It has been many years since I left the Navy and the nuclear industry, but I will try to provide a little background on what is going on in Japan. The plants I worked at were a type known as Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), while the plants in Japan are Boiling Water Reactors (BWR), but many of the principles are the same.

In a nuclear reactor, fuel pellets consisting of uranium surround by a shell that prevents corrosion. These pellets are inserted into fuel bundles in the precise geometric arrangement needed to allow the reactor to go critical (the condition “critical” is nothing to be alarmed about). The fuel rods are then inserted into the core, again in a precise arrangement that is needed to produce the nuclear reaction necessary to generate energy in the form of heat.

A nuclear reaction takes place within the nuclear core that produces heat. The power output of the reactor is controlled by inserting or withdrawing control rods to maintain the nuclear reaction at the desired level. These control rods are made of a material that absorbs neutrons, which are required to sustain the nuclear reaction. When the rods are withdrawn, the nuclear reaction rate increases. When the reaction rate is high enough to maintain itself in a steady-state condition, the reactor is ‘critical’. The term ‘super-critical’ is used to describe the reaction rate that is increasing, and ‘sub-critical’ means the rate is decreasing. These are all a normal part of the operation of a reactor plant, contrary to what Hollywood would have you to believe.

Water is an important part of the nuclear process, and serves three important functions. In order for the nuclear reaction to reach sustainable levels, neutrons must be contained within the core. Water is used to reflect neutrons that would normally escape back into the core, keeping them available for the process. Naturally occurring neutrons produced by the fuel are at a high energy level and are moving at speeds that prevent them from readily being used in the desired nuclear reaction. When those neutrons collide with the atoms in the water, they give off a part of their energy and slow down, or ‘moderate’. These slower neutrons are reflected back into the core and are now able to produce the sustained reaction needed.

The water, having picked up the excess energy from the neutrons in the form of heat, carries that heat away from the core, providing a third function, cooling. In the BWR, the water is allowed to boil producing steam used to turn large turbine generators that produce electricity. The steam is then condensed and returned to the reactor to be used again.

Power in the BWR is controlled by positioning of the control rods, and by controlling coolant flow through the core. During normal operation, these control rods are moved in small increments to adjust power until the reactor is critical, and flow is adjusted as needed to maintain the plant at the desired power level. In an emergency the plant is SCRAMmed, which means that the rods are driven in almost instantaneously to shut down the nuclear reaction. Normally, water continues to circulate through the core to remove residual heat known as ‘decay heat’.

Initially, those plants in the earthquake area of Japan were SCRAMmed either as the earthquake began, or when power was lost. Onsite diesel generators were there for backup power to keep the coolant flowing, but it appears those generators were damaged by the tsunami that followed the earthquake. Each plant has several layers of emergency cooling systems that can be used if those generators fail, but I am not familiar with the systems in use at those plants.

In a Loss Of Coolant Accident (LOCA), the reflective and moderating effects of the water are lost, preventing the core from maintaining a state of criticality even if the control rods were not inserted. In this case, the rods were inserted, so no sustained reaction is taking place, although a substantial amount of decay heat needs to be removed. It is this decay heat that is causing the rise in pressure within the plants, and as residual water is boiled off the fuel rods are exposed which can result in melting of the fuel rods, commonly known as a ‘meltdown’. As the amount of water available to cool the core decreases, a condition can occur where the water boils off rapidly creating very pressures that, if not relieved fast enough, can cause a steam explosion. As the fuel pellets are exposed to air, hydrogen gas can be generated in high enough quantities to cause a hydrogen explosion.

Despite what Hollywood would have us believe, China is in no danger from a nuclear meltdown. There have been several reactor meltdowns that have occurred in the history of the nuclear power industry, none of which have resulted in a blob of molten uranium reaching the earth’s core. The worst example we have is Chernobyl, and frankly that situation was created by poorly designed reactors, and exacerbated by the incompetence of Russian nuclear engineers and plant operators. Japanese plants are much better designed and operated.

The greatest danger of a meltdown is to the immediate area where radiation levels can increase, and where radioactive materials can contaminate the local environment. This is of course hazardous to those in the immediate area, and will pose a significant cleanup problem.

As I write, radiation levels are elevated near at least one of the sites, and radioactive steam has been released into the surrounding atmosphere. Reports are that an explosion has occurred at one site. It should be noted that this was NOT a nuclear explosion, but rather a steam or hydrogen explosion, or perhaps a combination of the two. Because a nuclear explosion requires a very precise set of conditions to occur, and because those conditions simply do not exist in these plants, a nuclear explosion is not a possibility. Since ‘fallout’ is a product of a nuclear explosion, it is not a concern.

Radiation levels in the plants are certainly very high at the moment, and are most likely elevated in the near vicinity of the buildings, but levels will drop rapidly as distance from the source increases. Any steam or gasses that escape will also be radioactive, and anyone exposed to them will need to be decontaminated. Breathing these gasses or vapors will be hazardous, but officials have wisely evacuated civilians from the area, and winds are blowing these materials out to sea where they will quickly dissipate. Workers in the plants have and are certainly using available protective gear, and are routinely monitored for radiation exposure.

I would never suggest that there are not significant dangers involved in the situation in Japan, but those dangers are mostly limited to the local area, and to a much lesser degree to neighboring countries where some exposure to radioactive steam and gasses is possible. For those who would use this as an excuse to say nuclear power is too dangerous, I would point out that these plants have just experienced not only a massive earthquake said to be one of the strongest ever recorded, followed immediately by a devastating tsunami. Although the plants have been heavily damaged, injuries are few and thankfully no deaths have been reported.

Crude Oil or Snake Oil?

The Associated Press is reporting that in remarks made at a meeting with his newly appointed economic competitiveness council, President Obama said of oil prices: "We think we'll be able to ride out the situation in Libya and it will stabilize." On the surface, this statement should serve to alleviate the fears of those who are concerned about the effect skyrocketing energy prices will have on the economy, until you take a closer look. His statement has more to do with snake oil than crude oil. Like most things Obama says, they don’t always mean what he wants you to think they mean.

Nervousness about the unrest in the Middle East has resulted in a huge spike in fuel prices, and most of us are hoping the spike will be short-lived. The President however, has expressed confidence that prices will “stabilize”. If you take a quick look at your dictionary, you will find that the word “stabilize” means to become steady or firm. Frankly, the last thing we want now if for oil prices to “stabilize”. The President, on the other hand, has made it clear in the past that he is in favor of making energy prices “skyrocket”.

Defenders of the administration would naturally say that’s not what he meant, but we can see from other issues that the President is not likely to let a crisis go to waste. Take for example, his call for a spending freeze at a time when government spending is at a record high. Freezing spending at this point would only serve to maintain it at an unsustainable level. Stabilizing oil prices at this point would guarantee higher prices at the pump for the foreseeable future.

Most of us have seen the interview in which then candidate Obama states that under his Cap and Trade plan, energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket”. In a 2008 interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, then Senator Obama expressed concern only about the rate of increase in the price of fuel, saying “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.” It is a common theme among those on the left that higher fuel prices will encourage the use of alternative fuels.

The White House of course, denies any such desire on the part of the President to drive up gasoline prices. It is hard to take much comfort in those assurances however, in light of the fact that Obama chose Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. This Nobel Prize winning physicist said in a 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe". Such a policy would, in his estimation, cause people to buy more energy efficient cars and live in neighborhoods closer to their jobs. Gasoline prices in Europe are currently over $8 per gallon.

When asked about the statement by Secretary Chu by ABC’s Jake Tapper, White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed any suggestion that the Secretary was pursuing such a goal. “Jake, you made the point that that statement was made by Secretary Chu before this administration was ever in office…And -- no, in fact, if you look at his -- some of his testimony, I believe he's addressed this and renounced the notion…”

Other statements however, seem to contradict this assertion. Secretary Chu, true to form, said in February: “The best way America can protect itself against these incidents is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, in fact to diversify our supply.” The question of course, is whether Chu meant “our supply” of oil or energy? If he meant oil, the administration has certainly not taken any steps to accomplish that goal. There are basically two supplies of oil, foreign and domestic. If we are to diversify our supply of oil, it stands to reason that we would have to increase our domestic supply.

If we take a look at the administration’s policies, it is difficult to believe that the President is making any effort to increase our supply of domestic oil. In fact, the case could easily be made that the administration is actively working to reduce our available supply. Obama’s ban on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as being in violation of a court order, has cut domestic oil production by as much as 13% this year. A decision effectively banning drilling in the Western Gulf of Mexico, as well as both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is putting nearly 20 billion barrels of oil off limits. The cancellation of 77 oil and gas leases in Utah has hampered efforts to tap into the 800 billion barrels of oil believed to be available in the Green River Formation, which is three times the proven oil reserve of Saudi Arabia. Needless to say, the Obama administration has not come out in favor of drilling in ANWAR.

Rather than taking concrete steps reduce energy prices at a time when our economy cannot weather another summer of $4 gasoline, the administration is taking the opportunity to instead focus on “alternative” fuels. In the same interview, Carney said, “This president, this administration's keenly aware of the impact of high gasoline prices on average Americans, especially in a still- recovering economy.  And we are monitoring gas prices.  And we are also, as you have seen over the past two-plus years, very focused on the need precisely to develop other energy sources so that we are not as dependent on foreign oil as we have been in the past.” 

It seems obvious that President Obama’s chief concern is to reduce our dependence on all oil, rather than just foreign oil. While this might well be a laudable goal, reaching that point by driving up the cost of oil rather than reducing the cost of alternative energy is the wrong approach. A more sensible alternative would be to develop our own resources while pursuing a parallel path of developing alternative energy sources. We can accomplish this much more effectively with a market driven methods rather than through government interference which artificially move us in directions that harm our economy. The fact that the President steadfastly refuses to allow that to happen is proof that furthering his leftist agenda is more important to him than the welfare of the nation.