THE ENTERPRISE--COMPETENCE, INCOMPETENCE & UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
AN UNBELIEVABLE PARABLE:
PART 1--WHEN INCOMPETENTS ARE ELEVATED TO POSITIONS FOR WHICH THEY ARE UNQUALIFIED
Imagine a scenario: A huge industrial company like General Electric or IBM needs a new CEO. It's Chairman and CEO, someone like Jeffrey Immelt or Jack Welch or Louis Gerstner is retiring. A bright, and very articulate middle manager in one of its divisions makes a speech on the "Company of the Future" at one of the Company's largest corporate meetings. He is a "huge hit!" Suddenly there is a groundswell within the Company that thinks this unproven, barely-known, mid-level manager with little or no executive experience should be the next Chairman & CEO. After all, the company is big into diversity and he is multi-cultural, too. The media loves him and he graces the cover of major magazines. He is taken under the wing of a small group of shareholders, and former executives (removed for non-performance reasons), who coach him on what to say, and organize a "campaign" with the board and shareholders to put him on the proxy and ballot and choose him as the successor Chairman & CEO. Finally the shareholders meeting comes and sure enough, the young, inexperienced, but articulate rookie is selected as the next CEO--by a narrow margin.
PART 2--EXPOSING THE IMPOSTOR--OR "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!"
As the new CEO takes office, the coalition of shareholders enlists the help of many "has beens" and mediocre "hangers on" to agree with his decisions and protect their jobs from cutbacks. Even though this group is the marginally qualified, not very talented veterans, this too works. Everything is working for the new CEO until not one or two, but several crises break out. He has no idea how to handle them, so he simply makes speech after speech, restating the obvious and promising miracle cures. Research reveals that a lot of his background information is murky, unclear and simply not available. It's hard to tell where he came from and so forth. In desperation, he (is advised and) begins blames all of the crises on his predecessors. Financial results are terrible. The new CEO's supporters, forgetting his inexperience and lack of qualifications become angry with him for "not doing the job they got for him."
PART 3--NOW WHAT? THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE DESPERATE, BUT MUCH OF THE DAMAGE IS DONE
All of the talented members of senior management are outraged, but the CEO tells them to follow his directions and failing that he replaces the best and most competent with his former "crony buddies" from the playground. Finally the realization that this was a pretender, a puppet and an glib, articulate (and quite smart) neophyte. A "hollow suit" as one put it. By the way, since the new CEO is "multi-cultural" he chooses many other minorities for key positions, choosing ethnicity over quality in many cases. Policies are changed and chaos results. Customers and suppliers alike are aghast at the decisions being made. Employees are desperate as many are suffering since the company's fortunes have plummeted. Much to the chagrin of shareholders, the new CEO is doing everything the opposite of what he said when he was trying to be chosen for the job--and little of it is working. He attacks too many big issues at once, with too little talented staff to execute, and then tries "throwing money at the problems" to make them better.
PART 4--IS ANY OF THIS SOUNDING FAMILIAR YET?
I will leave it to readers to figure out what my simple "business parable" describes. Talking a good game is not the same as knowing what to do. Making inspiring speeches is just one, and not the major qualification of a skilled leader. Then following ill-advised actions based on the advice of "hacks" who care only about their power, positions and prominence, leads to disastrous consequences.
Of course my story is a parallel for the USA, and it's President, Barack Obama--the silver tongued one, who has turned into the "two-faced one" and the "emperor who has no clothes." The problem is one of consequences, and it will take years, perhaps decades to repair the damage he has already done or allowed to be done in less than two years.
THE POINT: CONSCIOUS VS. UNCONSCIOUS; COMPETENCE VS. INCOMPETENCE; MATTERS A LOT...
In business (and in politics) there are several kinds of managers (and candidates) you will find. There are "competent ones," which come in two "flavors"--conscious-competents (the best kind) and unconscious-competents (who inadvertently do the right thing just trying to look good). Clearly you know which kind is preferable. There are also "incompetent ones," which also come in two kinds: conscious-incompetents (whose policy beliefs are just wrong) and unconscious-incompetents (who are "clueless" enough that they do the wrong things, thinking they are doing the right things!).
Sometimes, political parties and powerful leaders prefer the latter one--unconscious incompetents--since they are like sheep who can be herded to do whatever is desired. (We have one--or more--of those holding office from OH--Mary Jo Kilroy is an example of that kind. She is "Pelosi's Puppet!" See below.)
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PARTY MONEY (FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE) "BUYS" A MISGUIDED/INCOMPETENT REPR. A SEAT IN CONGRESS
Mary Jo Kilroy is what happens. (And she is is trying to get reelected the same way.) I will not judge her intentions--only she knows what they are. Perhaps they were noble and correct. I can only see in retrospect what she demonstrated when she was arguably the worse city commissioner Columbus ever had. Her misguided pursuit of union rights alone (demanding that public contracts must use "qualified" [Union] contractors, probably cost Franklin County millions. On the new ball park alone it was about a 1/4 million on one contract--in which the courts later ruled she was wrong!!!
Download Kilroy Was Here, Alas - WSJ.com
WHY WE MUST ELECT A COMPETENT SENATOR--ROB PORTMAN--ON NOV. 2!
(WHEN YOU HAVE A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE SENATOR (LAMAR ALEXANDER, R, TN)--THIS HAPPENS)
Spending Freeze: Because federal spending and debt are at crisis levels, Republican senators on the Appropriations Committee are asking our Democratic colleagues to join us in supporting a freeze on federal spending. Every Republican and 17 Democratic senators have already voted for the Sessions-McCaskill amendment basically freezing discretionary appropriations, which constitute 38 percent of the federal budget. For more info: http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=0296a9d3-79a9-4005-bf40-6bdc3529f2c3&ContentType_id=778be7e0-0d5a-42b2-9352-09ed63cc4d66&Group_id=80d87631-7c25-4340-a97a-72cccdd8a658&YearDisplay=2010
GREEN ENERGY SOURCES (WIND, WATER, SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, TIDAL) ARE/WILL BE NICHE PLAYERS
Someday, our rookie President will get someone honest to run the numbers behind the things he peddles to the uninformed who make up a large part (majority) of his supporters. First he brings Christine Romer from the University scene on the West Coast to Washington, and all her research that proves government spending has a NEGATIVE impact on the country's economic growth is forgotten. She struggles and squirms to support Obama's soaring rhetoric and flawed reasoning. "Dirty Harry" Reid decides he doesn't want Yucca Mountain (nuclear waste storage) in his backyard--after decades of spending going into Nevada preparing for it.
Experts admit that even if "green energy sources" reach their ultimate potential in the next decade or two, they can only provide a small share of America's energy needs. A solar car--no way. Maybe a few geothermal houses, if the owner is rich enough to spend 10X what a regular heating plant costs. Hydroelectric has been around for decades. It is a mature energy source--and new dams are damn expensive to build. Tidal might work if you are near somewhere that had tides...but it's not cheap either. This leaves Nuclear--which the "scare tactics" of environmentalists have thwarted ever since Three Mile Island occurred--a "disaster" which never caused massive destruction or death!
A NEWLY FOUND COMPETENCE: A FORMER GOVERNOR AND NOW A SENATOR WEIGHS IN
I've never been a big Lamar Alexander fan. He was Gov. of TN when I was down there. Now he is one of the more sensible voices in the US Senate--how times change. He is also a resident of TVA country where the decades old campaigns of FDR built numerous dams and where electricity is about as cheap as it comes (of course as of 6-7 years ago, TVA, which is a quasi-government owned entity like the Post office or Railroads, had about $30 billion in debt and was scraping along, struggling to make money to pay it down. Alexander knows all this. Consider his take on nuclear power, posted below. It makes a lot of sense.
I WONDER IF THE POLLS AND THE VOTING BOOTHS WILL MATCH UP IN NOV.
Most Americans want a government that works for them, not vice versa; one that reflects the values upon which America was founded: hard work, local control, limited government, fiscal responsibility, a respect for private property, and "liberty" and the "rights" of the people, by the people and for the people. Most Americans have seen the failings of big government control and policies, and the tax and spend, and spend, and spend that goes with them. 55% of voters describe President Obama's policies as "Socialist" according to a Democracy Corps. poll, a Democratic polling firm. 60% want to repeal the mammoth, expensive health care law that was crammed through Congress. (Rasmussen poll). 73% of Americans oppose the drilling moratorium in the Gulf (Bloomberg poll). 2/3 or more or Americans support the Arizona immigration control law.
WILL THESE MAJORITIES VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL FIX THE MISTAKES, AND REELECT THE BRAVE MINORITY WHO HAVE TRIED TO SLOW THE JUGGERNAUT OF "OBAMA-ISM"? I hope so. The uninformed and misinformed (by mainstream liberal media) and those who like being supported by others in a "welfare state," will vote for a continuation of the Democratic/Obama led policies.
THE ELECTION IS ONLY 90 DAYS AWAY!
ONLY IF YOU GET TO THE YOUTH AND TO THE UNIFORMED AND MISINFORMED; TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS. HELP THEM SEE THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT, AND NEVER WILL CREATE WEALTH. IT CAN ONLY TAKE WEALTH FROM OTHERS WHO EARN IT BY THEIR HARD WORK AND SPEND IT AND WASTE IT AND GIVE IT AWAY.
THE FUTURE IS IN YOUR HANDS!
BEST, JOHN
PS: Maybe if we put it in terms our Narcissist in Chief Obama understands--Basketball--he'd see how misguided his opposition to Arizona's new immigration law is in common sense terms. (But why do I expect that? Old Two-face'll say he gets it and then do something else.)
Am I upset? You bet I am. It took us a lot of toil, trouble and pain to build America IN more than TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Obama and his wrecking crew led by Pelosi and Reid are destroying that in TWO YEARS. You should be upset too--and I bet most of you that read this far are upset too.
"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes
of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a
good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security
personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket
stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what
if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with
complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a
gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical
care and shelter?" -Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
Nuclear Energy Is Cheap and Reliable—Today nuclear power produces 20 percent of our nation’s electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. by Lamar Alexander
Forty years ago, at the time of the first Earth Day, Americans became deeply worried about air and water pollution and a population explosion that threatened to overrun the planet’s resources. Nuclear power was seen as a savior to these environmental dilemmas. It could produce large amounts of low-cost, reliable clean energy. Unlike oil, nuclear power did not need to be hauled in leaking tankers from countries that didn’t like us. Unlike coal, it didn’t spew tons of pollution out of smokestacks.
Then Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened. The world pulled back, fearful of nuclear technology—even though no one was hurt at Three Mile Island. In fact, no one has ever died as a result of a nuclear accident at an American commercial nuclear reactor or on a U.S. Navy ship powered by reactors. Chernobyl was the tragic result of a flawed technology never used in the United States. Still, the United States hasn’t licensed a new reactor since 1978.
Now the rest of the world is returning to nuclear energy. France is 80 percent nuclear and has the lowest per capita carbon emissions, and among the cheapest electricity costs, in Western Europe. Italy, Britain, Finland, and Eastern Europe all are exploring new reactors. Russia, India, China, and Japan are moving ahead. South Korea is selling reactors to the United Arab Emirates.
These countries realize that exploding populations demand large amounts of cheap, reliable electricity to help create jobs and lift people out of poverty. And nuclear power provides just that. The National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 report said that the cost of nuclear power is equal to or lower than natural gas, wind, solar, or coal with carbon capture. Reactors can operate for 80 years, while wind and solar last about 25 years. And nuclear reactors operate 90 percent of the time, while wind and solar are only available about a third of the time. (Remember: wind and solar power can’t be stored today in significant amounts.) Most people don’t want their lights and computers working only when the wind blows.
And nuclear plants occupy a fraction of the land required for wind or solar. For example, 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from 104 nuclear reactors on about 100 square miles. Producing the same amount of power from wind would require covering an area the size of West Virginia with 183,000 50-story turbines as well as building 19,000 miles of new transmission lines through scenic areas and suburban backyards.
Nuclear fuel is available in the United States and is virtually unlimited. We don’t have to drill for it. We don’t have to mine it nearly as much as we do for coal. And thanks to technology, we can safely recycle “nuclear waste” and turn most of it into more fuel. After recycling, the French are able to store all of their final waste—from producing 80 percent of their electricity for 30 years—in one room in La Hague.
A more recently realized benefit of nuclear power is its ability to combat climate change. Nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases. Today it produces 20 percent of our nation’s electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Wind and solar provide less than 2 percent of our electricity and 6 percent of our carbon-free electricity today.
The United States uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world. At a time when we need to produce large amounts of clean power at home, at a cost that will not chase jobs overseas looking for cheap energy, Americans can’t afford to ignore nuclear power.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/07/19/Lamar-Alexander-Nuclear-Energy-Is-Cheap-and-Reliable.html
from U.S. News & World Report July 19, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
AN UNBELIEVABLE PARABLE:
PART 1--WHEN INCOMPETENTS ARE ELEVATED TO POSITIONS FOR WHICH THEY ARE UNQUALIFIED
Imagine a scenario: A huge industrial company like General Electric or IBM needs a new CEO. It's Chairman and CEO, someone like Jeffrey Immelt or Jack Welch or Louis Gerstner is retiring. A bright, and very articulate middle manager in one of its divisions makes a speech on the "Company of the Future" at one of the Company's largest corporate meetings. He is a "huge hit!" Suddenly there is a groundswell within the Company that thinks this unproven, barely-known, mid-level manager with little or no executive experience should be the next Chairman & CEO. After all, the company is big into diversity and he is multi-cultural, too. The media loves him and he graces the cover of major magazines. He is taken under the wing of a small group of shareholders, and former executives (removed for non-performance reasons), who coach him on what to say, and organize a "campaign" with the board and shareholders to put him on the proxy and ballot and choose him as the successor Chairman & CEO. Finally the shareholders meeting comes and sure enough, the young, inexperienced, but articulate rookie is selected as the next CEO--by a narrow margin.
PART 2--EXPOSING THE IMPOSTOR--OR "THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES!"
As the new CEO takes office, the coalition of shareholders enlists the help of many "has beens" and mediocre "hangers on" to agree with his decisions and protect their jobs from cutbacks. Even though this group is the marginally qualified, not very talented veterans, this too works. Everything is working for the new CEO until not one or two, but several crises break out. He has no idea how to handle them, so he simply makes speech after speech, restating the obvious and promising miracle cures. Research reveals that a lot of his background information is murky, unclear and simply not available. It's hard to tell where he came from and so forth. In desperation, he (is advised and) begins blames all of the crises on his predecessors. Financial results are terrible. The new CEO's supporters, forgetting his inexperience and lack of qualifications become angry with him for "not doing the job they got for him."
PART 3--NOW WHAT? THE SHAREHOLDERS ARE DESPERATE, BUT MUCH OF THE DAMAGE IS DONE
All of the talented members of senior management are outraged, but the CEO tells them to follow his directions and failing that he replaces the best and most competent with his former "crony buddies" from the playground. Finally the realization that this was a pretender, a puppet and an glib, articulate (and quite smart) neophyte. A "hollow suit" as one put it. By the way, since the new CEO is "multi-cultural" he chooses many other minorities for key positions, choosing ethnicity over quality in many cases. Policies are changed and chaos results. Customers and suppliers alike are aghast at the decisions being made. Employees are desperate as many are suffering since the company's fortunes have plummeted. Much to the chagrin of shareholders, the new CEO is doing everything the opposite of what he said when he was trying to be chosen for the job--and little of it is working. He attacks too many big issues at once, with too little talented staff to execute, and then tries "throwing money at the problems" to make them better.
PART 4--IS ANY OF THIS SOUNDING FAMILIAR YET?
I will leave it to readers to figure out what my simple "business parable" describes. Talking a good game is not the same as knowing what to do. Making inspiring speeches is just one, and not the major qualification of a skilled leader. Then following ill-advised actions based on the advice of "hacks" who care only about their power, positions and prominence, leads to disastrous consequences.
Of course my story is a parallel for the USA, and it's President, Barack Obama--the silver tongued one, who has turned into the "two-faced one" and the "emperor who has no clothes." The problem is one of consequences, and it will take years, perhaps decades to repair the damage he has already done or allowed to be done in less than two years.
THE POINT: CONSCIOUS VS. UNCONSCIOUS; COMPETENCE VS. INCOMPETENCE; MATTERS A LOT...
In business (and in politics) there are several kinds of managers (and candidates) you will find. There are "competent ones," which come in two "flavors"--conscious-competents (the best kind) and unconscious-competents (who inadvertently do the right thing just trying to look good). Clearly you know which kind is preferable. There are also "incompetent ones," which also come in two kinds: conscious-incompetents (whose policy beliefs are just wrong) and unconscious-incompetents (who are "clueless" enough that they do the wrong things, thinking they are doing the right things!).
Sometimes, political parties and powerful leaders prefer the latter one--unconscious incompetents--since they are like sheep who can be herded to do whatever is desired. (We have one--or more--of those holding office from OH--Mary Jo Kilroy is an example of that kind. She is "Pelosi's Puppet!" See below.)
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PARTY MONEY (FROM OUTSIDE THE STATE) "BUYS" A MISGUIDED/INCOMPETENT REPR. A SEAT IN CONGRESS
Mary Jo Kilroy is what happens. (And she is is trying to get reelected the same way.) I will not judge her intentions--only she knows what they are. Perhaps they were noble and correct. I can only see in retrospect what she demonstrated when she was arguably the worse city commissioner Columbus ever had. Her misguided pursuit of union rights alone (demanding that public contracts must use "qualified" [Union] contractors, probably cost Franklin County millions. On the new ball park alone it was about a 1/4 million on one contract--in which the courts later ruled she was wrong!!!
Download Kilroy Was Here, Alas - WSJ.com
WHY WE MUST ELECT A COMPETENT SENATOR--ROB PORTMAN--ON NOV. 2!
(WHEN YOU HAVE A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE SENATOR (LAMAR ALEXANDER, R, TN)--THIS HAPPENS)
Spending Freeze: Because federal spending and debt are at crisis levels, Republican senators on the Appropriations Committee are asking our Democratic colleagues to join us in supporting a freeze on federal spending. Every Republican and 17 Democratic senators have already voted for the Sessions-McCaskill amendment basically freezing discretionary appropriations, which constitute 38 percent of the federal budget. For more info: http://alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=0296a9d3-79a9-4005-bf40-6bdc3529f2c3&ContentType_id=778be7e0-0d5a-42b2-9352-09ed63cc4d66&Group_id=80d87631-7c25-4340-a97a-72cccdd8a658&YearDisplay=2010
GREEN ENERGY SOURCES (WIND, WATER, SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL, TIDAL) ARE/WILL BE NICHE PLAYERS
Someday, our rookie President will get someone honest to run the numbers behind the things he peddles to the uninformed who make up a large part (majority) of his supporters. First he brings Christine Romer from the University scene on the West Coast to Washington, and all her research that proves government spending has a NEGATIVE impact on the country's economic growth is forgotten. She struggles and squirms to support Obama's soaring rhetoric and flawed reasoning. "Dirty Harry" Reid decides he doesn't want Yucca Mountain (nuclear waste storage) in his backyard--after decades of spending going into Nevada preparing for it.
Experts admit that even if "green energy sources" reach their ultimate potential in the next decade or two, they can only provide a small share of America's energy needs. A solar car--no way. Maybe a few geothermal houses, if the owner is rich enough to spend 10X what a regular heating plant costs. Hydroelectric has been around for decades. It is a mature energy source--and new dams are damn expensive to build. Tidal might work if you are near somewhere that had tides...but it's not cheap either. This leaves Nuclear--which the "scare tactics" of environmentalists have thwarted ever since Three Mile Island occurred--a "disaster" which never caused massive destruction or death!
A NEWLY FOUND COMPETENCE: A FORMER GOVERNOR AND NOW A SENATOR WEIGHS IN
I've never been a big Lamar Alexander fan. He was Gov. of TN when I was down there. Now he is one of the more sensible voices in the US Senate--how times change. He is also a resident of TVA country where the decades old campaigns of FDR built numerous dams and where electricity is about as cheap as it comes (of course as of 6-7 years ago, TVA, which is a quasi-government owned entity like the Post office or Railroads, had about $30 billion in debt and was scraping along, struggling to make money to pay it down. Alexander knows all this. Consider his take on nuclear power, posted below. It makes a lot of sense.
I WONDER IF THE POLLS AND THE VOTING BOOTHS WILL MATCH UP IN NOV.
Most Americans want a government that works for them, not vice versa; one that reflects the values upon which America was founded: hard work, local control, limited government, fiscal responsibility, a respect for private property, and "liberty" and the "rights" of the people, by the people and for the people. Most Americans have seen the failings of big government control and policies, and the tax and spend, and spend, and spend that goes with them. 55% of voters describe President Obama's policies as "Socialist" according to a Democracy Corps. poll, a Democratic polling firm. 60% want to repeal the mammoth, expensive health care law that was crammed through Congress. (Rasmussen poll). 73% of Americans oppose the drilling moratorium in the Gulf (Bloomberg poll). 2/3 or more or Americans support the Arizona immigration control law.
WILL THESE MAJORITIES VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL FIX THE MISTAKES, AND REELECT THE BRAVE MINORITY WHO HAVE TRIED TO SLOW THE JUGGERNAUT OF "OBAMA-ISM"? I hope so. The uninformed and misinformed (by mainstream liberal media) and those who like being supported by others in a "welfare state," will vote for a continuation of the Democratic/Obama led policies.
THE ELECTION IS ONLY 90 DAYS AWAY!
ONLY IF YOU GET TO THE YOUTH AND TO THE UNIFORMED AND MISINFORMED; TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS. HELP THEM SEE THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT, AND NEVER WILL CREATE WEALTH. IT CAN ONLY TAKE WEALTH FROM OTHERS WHO EARN IT BY THEIR HARD WORK AND SPEND IT AND WASTE IT AND GIVE IT AWAY.
THE FUTURE IS IN YOUR HANDS!
BEST, JOHN
PS: Maybe if we put it in terms our Narcissist in Chief Obama understands--Basketball--he'd see how misguided his opposition to Arizona's new immigration law is in common sense terms. (But why do I expect that? Old Two-face'll say he gets it and then do something else.)
Am I upset? You bet I am. It took us a lot of toil, trouble and pain to build America IN more than TWO HUNDRED YEARS. Obama and his wrecking crew led by Pelosi and Reid are destroying that in TWO YEARS. You should be upset too--and I bet most of you that read this far are upset too.
"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes
of people were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a
good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security
personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket
stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected. Furthermore, what
if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with
complimentary eats and drink? And what if, on those days when a
gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical
care and shelter?" -Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
Nuclear Energy Is Cheap and Reliable—Today nuclear power produces 20 percent of our nation’s electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. by Lamar Alexander
Forty years ago, at the time of the first Earth Day, Americans became deeply worried about air and water pollution and a population explosion that threatened to overrun the planet’s resources. Nuclear power was seen as a savior to these environmental dilemmas. It could produce large amounts of low-cost, reliable clean energy. Unlike oil, nuclear power did not need to be hauled in leaking tankers from countries that didn’t like us. Unlike coal, it didn’t spew tons of pollution out of smokestacks.
Then Three Mile Island and Chernobyl happened. The world pulled back, fearful of nuclear technology—even though no one was hurt at Three Mile Island. In fact, no one has ever died as a result of a nuclear accident at an American commercial nuclear reactor or on a U.S. Navy ship powered by reactors. Chernobyl was the tragic result of a flawed technology never used in the United States. Still, the United States hasn’t licensed a new reactor since 1978.
Now the rest of the world is returning to nuclear energy. France is 80 percent nuclear and has the lowest per capita carbon emissions, and among the cheapest electricity costs, in Western Europe. Italy, Britain, Finland, and Eastern Europe all are exploring new reactors. Russia, India, China, and Japan are moving ahead. South Korea is selling reactors to the United Arab Emirates.
These countries realize that exploding populations demand large amounts of cheap, reliable electricity to help create jobs and lift people out of poverty. And nuclear power provides just that. The National Academy of Sciences in a 2009 report said that the cost of nuclear power is equal to or lower than natural gas, wind, solar, or coal with carbon capture. Reactors can operate for 80 years, while wind and solar last about 25 years. And nuclear reactors operate 90 percent of the time, while wind and solar are only available about a third of the time. (Remember: wind and solar power can’t be stored today in significant amounts.) Most people don’t want their lights and computers working only when the wind blows.
And nuclear plants occupy a fraction of the land required for wind or solar. For example, 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from 104 nuclear reactors on about 100 square miles. Producing the same amount of power from wind would require covering an area the size of West Virginia with 183,000 50-story turbines as well as building 19,000 miles of new transmission lines through scenic areas and suburban backyards.
Nuclear fuel is available in the United States and is virtually unlimited. We don’t have to drill for it. We don’t have to mine it nearly as much as we do for coal. And thanks to technology, we can safely recycle “nuclear waste” and turn most of it into more fuel. After recycling, the French are able to store all of their final waste—from producing 80 percent of their electricity for 30 years—in one room in La Hague.
A more recently realized benefit of nuclear power is its ability to combat climate change. Nuclear power emits zero greenhouse gases. Today it produces 20 percent of our nation’s electricity but 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity. Wind and solar provide less than 2 percent of our electricity and 6 percent of our carbon-free electricity today.
The United States uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world. At a time when we need to produce large amounts of clean power at home, at a cost that will not chase jobs overseas looking for cheap energy, Americans can’t afford to ignore nuclear power.
http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/07/19/Lamar-Alexander-Nuclear-Energy-Is-Cheap-and-Reliable.html
from U.S. News & World Report July 19, 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
Comments