Since I’m on a global warming kick (not actually…this is basically just a continuation of the other day’s post), I’ve decided to show Al Gore (mainly Gore and his “environmentalist” Democrat cohorts) and his “carbon credits” scheme for the absolute frauds they are.

The first news to set me off on this tangent was that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was Paramount Studios’ most profitable release ever (via Variety). How absolutely sad is that? What’s even sadder is that Paramount, AFAIK, own all rights and distribution of all the Star Trek movies and series. So, Al Gore’s science fiction is more popular than Star Trek? The only thing inconvenient about An Inconvenient Truth is how many of the competing global warming theories it leaves out. According to Gore, there is only one truth, and it’s that “the sky is falling.”

Gore’s new schtick is promoting “carbon credits.” Carbon credits are essentially the same scheme Kyoto tried to pull on us years ago: redistribution of wealth, internationally, from more prosperous countries to less prosperous countries. It’s wealth redistribution on a global scale. No wonder the Socialists are all gaga over Gore’s plan.

Now, if Gore proports that “carbon credits” are an essential first step to curbing global warming, he must have seen all the other possible ideas out there and deemed them not feasible…right?

In fact, the Congress in place during the Clinton/Gore white house, under pressure from the Clinton/Gore administration itself, planted its big, greasy boot right in the middle of one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century…and Gore stood by and let them do it. If anything, he was part of the administration that pressured Congress to cut funding for this radical new device.

What am I talking about? The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR).

What is the IFR, you might ask? Essentially, it’s a liquid-metal breeder-type reactor with a revolutionary new fuel cycle. I know that sounds like gobbledy-gook, but let me explain the advantages and disadvantages.

(I’ll paraphrase and simplify because the jargon can get pretty confusing if you really don’t know anything about this stuff. I may not be 1000% accurate in my explanations, as I’m not a nuclear physicist or engineer. This is my best interpretation.)

Pros

• Due to multiple factors (which I won’t go into here), the chance of reactor meltdown is almost zero, which makes it one of the safest, if not the safest, reactor designs ever.
• Fuel for the reactor doesn’t have to be precisely fabricated like it does for current reactor designs. It can simply be cast like you’d cast metal ingots. Since the casting process is simple, it can be done on site, which adds to the safety factor.
• Some of the waste from the fuel cycle can be reprocessed into fuel for the same reactor, thus eliminating much of the problem with the storage of toxic waste we currently have to deal with.
• Not only that, but waste material from other, less efficient reactors (current models)…and even material from decommissioned nuclear warheads…can be easily reprocessed into fuel for the reactor. Again, this even further decreases our need for waste storage, which dramatically lessens the potential impact on the environment, not to mention exponentially extending fuel supplies.
• The worry of nuclear weapon proliferation using fuel from this reactor is essentially eliminated. The process needed to create nuclear weapon grade material from spent fuel is far too difficult and expensive to ever be feasible.
• The reactor produces no Plutonium as part of its waste. This allows for approximately a 300 year “cool off” cycle. At the end of that time, the radioactivity of the waste will be no greater than it was when the original material was first mined from the earth. Again, far less environmental impact.
• Since fuel is reprocessed on site, the storage and transportation issues we have with current nuclear waste are almost eliminated. Again, safer for the environment and the public at large.

Essentially, this new nuclear reactor would be safer, better for the environment, more efficient and could virtually eliminate our need for coal and oil, mainly in regards to electricity production, where the vast majority of our pollution and greenhouse gas production come from.

Cons

• The reactor uses Liquid Sodium in the cooling process. If you remember your high school chemistry, Sodium is very dangerous and volatile. The good news is that this danger can be (and was in the prototype) mitigated in the design.
• During the reactor operation, Sodium-24 is produced, which is extremely radioactive. The good news is that its half-life is only about 15 hours, when it then further decays into Magnesium-24. This is a minor qualm, because the isotope is short lived…and even has medical applications.
• Although it’s not feasible to turn the waste from the reactor into nuclear weapon grade material, there is still the danger of the reactor waste being used in a “dirty bomb.” Even so, with strict security and solid procedural oversight, the risk factor would be very, very low.

See that? Even the “cons” aren’t really cons.

With such a fantastic new reactor design sitting right in their laps, it’s impact on the environment obvious, why was the funding canceled? We may never know why but at least we’ll know mainly who. From the Wikipedia IFR article:

With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O’Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O’Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts*, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River breeder reactor effort that had been cancelled by Congress**. Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately cancelled in 1994.

* and ** - neither of which are true.

That’s right. Democrats, including John Kerry and Secretary of Energy Hazel O’Leary, along with pressure from the Clinton/Gore white house itself, killed the safest, most environmentally friendly nuclear reactor design program ever.

Even if Gore wasn’t part of the pressure to kill the project, why didn’t he step in and say something? Why didn’t he fight for something that could have dramatically helped reduce greehouse gas emmissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not just foreign fossil fuels, but fossil fuels period? I can only come up with two possible explanations:

1. Gore, along with the rest of the Democrats that were controlling the Congress at the time, are environmental frauds and are just as much in the pockets of “Big Energy” as Republicans are proported to be. (Believe me, I’m NOT defending Reps here. With all the talk of “alternative fuels” coming out of the white house, why is there no mention of resurrecting this project?)
2. If this reactor design were to go into production, Gore would have much less to hype about. His movie would have most likely never been made. His books and his rhetoric would be looked at as dubious at best. He wouldn’t be able to make nearly as much of a career, if any at all, of being a “champion of the environment.” In the short term, he would be a joke. In addition, his “carbon credits” wealth redistribution plan, which the Left loves so much (and the Right doesn’t seem to shy away from much, either) would be left high and dry. Sadly enough, if this project would have been completed and rolled into use, Gore, in the long run, might have been a true champion of the environment and recognized as such. Too bad most politicians are so short-sighted.

Either way, Gore is a fraud. If he was truly the “champion of the environment” he tries to make himself out to be, why did he not fight for such a spectacular advancement that would have truly had a positive impact on the environment?

Maybe if enough people start asking this question loudly enough, Ol’ Woody might have to answer. Just don’t expect it to be an honest answer. He is a politician, after all.

For more info and analysis on IFR: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

QUICK UPDATE: In “you have to be frackin’ kidding me” news: The University of Minnesota might give Gore an honorary doctorate in climatology.

I just threw up a little in my mouth.