E. Ralph Hostetter
Monday, Jan. 8, 2007

Reprint Information

Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves White House: We're Not Subject to FOIA FBI Seeks 2 Mysterious Men on Ferry Publisher: Conservatives Do Read As Much As Liberals Romney Shrugs Off Mormon History Film

Would you believe that within the foreseeable future the carbon dioxide emissions caused by the combustion of fossil fuels in America could be reduced by 60 percent by using recognized alternative methods, with no loss of energy to the nation?

You would think the true environmentalist would be delighted.

Combustion of fossil fuels accounts for more than 98 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the United States. Less than 2 percent comes from other sources.

Transportation (all cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, etc.) accounts for 33 percent of the CO2 emissions. All other fossil fuel uses including coal-fired electric generating plants account for the remainder.

Over 50 percent of U.S. electrical energy is produced by coal. Coal produces more CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour of electricity generated than do other fossil fuels.

Nearly all the global-warming complaints involving CO2 emissions have been directed at the transportation sector and, in particular, automobiles such as the SUV.

In reality, with all other factors considered, the automobile is but a part of the transportation sector which accounts for only one-third of all CO2 emissions nationally. If auto transportation were to be considered as much as two-thirds of the entire transportation sector, coal-fired electrical generating plants would contribute nearly three times the CO2 emissions as the automobile segment.

Story Continues Below

Elimination of all automobiles would reduce CO2 emissions by 22 percent. But everyone knows that is an impossibility. There is no substitute for the automobile.

It is possible, however, to phase out coal-fired electrical generating plants in the future and reduce CO2 emissions (which the global warmers are demanding) by some 60 percent, a figure that equals the draconian demands of the Kyoto Protocol.

This is achievable with presently available, proven alternative methods free of all CO2 emissions.

In order to bring this about, a simple trade off would be necessary. Give the global warmers what they are demanding, which is "a drastic decrease in CO2 emissions." That will solve their global warming problem as they have framed it. In turn, the global warmers must release the unconscionable grip they hold that denies Americans the production of electrical power through the use of atomic energy.

Atomic energy is the cleanest, most economical — and yes, safest — means of producing electrical energy.

Cost considerations alone should dictate that America convert to atomic energy for all of its electrical generation needs.

The average electrical production cost in 2005 for nuclear energy was 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh); for coal-fired plants, 2.21 cents/kWh, which is 27 percent more; for natural gas, 7.51 cents/kWh, representing 336 percent more; for oil, 8.09/kWh, a whopping 370 percent more.

Nuclear generation is not subject to wide variations of fuel supply.

From January 1999 to July 2000, the cost of natural gas increased by 88 percent. From 1990 to 1999, nuclear fuel costs decreased by 46 percent.

France produces 75 percent of its electrical energy and is building more atomic plants; Lithuania produces 90 percent; Belgium, nearly 70 percent.

By producing more than 60 percent of their energy by atomic means, these countries have met the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. China is building eight new atomic plants, five by the UK and three by Japan, all using Westinghouse Corporation technology.

Japan, by the way, now owns Westinghouse.

Westinghouse, a U.S. corporation then, was the largest provider of U.S. atomic plants some 30 years ago. The global warming movement, with the introduction of atomic energy plants, will be the big winner. They get what they asked for, big time!

Atomic generation, proven over 50 years of use, fits all the requirements of an alternate power source and sure beats the heck out of windmills.

A question arises: What chance does such a program have of acceptance?

In truth, at the present time, the chances are bleak to zero.

The production of 60 percent of all CO2 emissions in the United States from the combustion of fossil fuels at coal-fired generating plants is a treasured asset of the global warming envirocrats.

The envirocrat is a political activist posing as an environmentalist.

He has, through deceit, captured the moral high ground of the environmental movement and uses this coal-burning asset to whip-saw the American public into believing the fraudulent claim that automobiles, and particularly SUVs, are the cause of most CO2 emissions.

The increased use of atomic energy will be approved only when the envirocrat becomes a true environmentalist.

Steve Forbes, senior editor of Forbes magazine, set the issue straight last week when he identified the global warming movement as a scheme to transfer American wealth to the world. He said, "They tried it as Reds and failed. Now they are trying it as Greens."

This is the first of a continuing series involving CO2 emissions and the Kyoto Protocol.

Sources of statistics in this column are the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Defense, www.eia.doe.gov and www.geocrat.com, and the Nuclear Energy Institute, 222.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=694.

E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and agricultural publisher, also is a national and local award-winning columnist. He welcomes comments by e-mail sent to eralphhostetter@yahoo.com.

Editor's note:
Al Gore`s Global Warming Spin Debunked, More Here
Greenspan Sees Dark Clouds, Protect Yourself!
Doctor Reveals Cause of Brain Disease Explosion