US Energy Policy - Archaic, Just Like Our Infrastructure

President Obama has made his US Energy Policy pretty clear; American Independence is the prevailing theme. The WhiteHouse.gov website states they are "using modeling and simulation for advanced nuclear reactor operations". While this doesn't say they are not actively pursuing new technologies, they make an ambiguous and empty statement about nuclear energy inclusion for future plans. My problem is that our government should do one of two things: 

1. the government should walk the talk and foster an economy of research and development of nuclear energies or 
2. get out of the way and allow private corporations to pursue said economy.

I feel that, however it happens, our country needs to consider our long term prospects for our civilization. The global population is 7.3 billion people, estimated to reach 10 billion by 2025. With an expanding population comes an exponential increase in demand for resources. The US Department of Energy released a report (http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html) estimating oil production peaking in 2037 and ending permanently in 2125. So, 110 years from now, the world's fossil fuels will be extinct. (Get it?) The current administration has funded $36 billion to a nuclear plant in Burke, Georgia slated to open in 2016. That is the first reactor in 30 years.

Our current administration is making a dog & pony show of touting solar and wind technology, which is great. Germany currently employs more people in the solar photovoltaic industry than the automotive and engineering sectors combined. The United Arab Emirates are spending billions of dollars per year on wind energy infrastructure with a realization on long-term economic and financial power.

I understand why the nuclear market is not front page. The easy answer is no one wants another Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island. Another huge black eye is the inefficiency of our current nuclear design. Current nuclear facilities boast an efficiency rate between 1 to 15%. Solar is not much more efficient, boasting an industry-best 18% for some PV panel arrays. Solar, nuclear, and wind all have exorbitant expenses for start-up. Lastly, nuclear energy creates a deplorable amount of waste that carries a half-life of multiple millenia.

Consider this: I just attended a tour of the University of Texas Power Plant. The gas/steam plant produces energy and heat, was worth an estimated $1 billion dollars, burned $19 million/year in natural gas, and boasted a very impressive 85% efficiency rate. The plants production capability runs between 45-65MW/hr depending on time of year.  Austin Energy created the largest solar photovoltaic field in the United States to date. The Webberville project is on 100 acres with 127,000 solar panels. The site creates roughly 30MW/hr and cost $250 million dollars to build.

Enter IFR - integral fast reactors. IFRs have been in development for the better part of 20 years - please remember that research and development are expanding at a much faster rate than that of 50 years ago. The development of IFR reactors have yielded staggering results. Products like the GE PRISM reactor boast a 85-95% efficiency. Based on a different method of cooling uranium, the half-life of the waste is 1/10th of heavy-water reactors. These reactors have a pick-up truck and cost roughly $100 million dollars, creating 65MW/hr. Lastly, IFRs can also be fueled by the old plutonium/uranium waste, hence eliminating the old problem of 3,000 year radioactive decay storage and containment. Think about that one for a minute...

So, low cost, small size, greater efficiency... It kinda sounds too good to be true, right? As I said earlier, I am not a nuclear physicist. Let us evaluate all the information available to us:

• Hyperion has 133 orders from several different countries from around the world (p11).
• Dr. Loewen is a physicist, albeit in the employ of a company attempting to garner governmental support for their product; but if one watches the entire feature, Loewen makes no blatant sales pitch but rather states his findings and objective facts in a manner to allow watchers to make their own opinion
• IFR R&D have garnered support from Bill Gates and Richard Branson, 2 individuals who have credibility as philanthropists rather than shrewd businessmen; men of that caliber don't stick their names or necks out for "flash in the pan" ideas. 
• 3 U of Texas physicists were just given a patent for conceptual hybrid nuclear fission waste burning reactor thingy - article here (http://www.utexas.edu/news/2012/09/12/nuclear-waste-burning-technology-change-face-of-nuclear-energy/)

Here is the reason for my whole argument: a report by Dan Rather from Dan Rather Reports episode 608 (Power Play) with Dr. Eric Loewen (Univ of Wisconsin 1999) documented Dr. Loewen saying Steven Chu (US Secretary of Energy) and the US don't have any plans to seriously consider alternative (and safer) nuclear programs until the year 2040, with an estimated market availability in year 2050 (p7)

Really, 2040? I wonder what delaying research 28 years might be... (is that the expected date of deficit payoff?).

I would hope you have formed an open mind to the possibility that there is a more efficient, safer, and affordable alternative than the status quo. My original argument is the government needs to foster the facilitation of this or allow it to grow. I would hope that both the government and businesses would work together as there is some potential for a catastrophic health consequence. I also would hope that the US Department of Energy and Secretary Chu can make this happen a little bit sooner than 2040. If the government were to begin/allow R&D in the next few years, more transparent information would be available. Legislators, economists, and scientists could either foster in a whole new era of energy or could make an informed decision that the consequences are not worth the risk and return to the drawing board.

One final point to make: consider the cultivation of a new industry such as this for the sheer economic impact regarding job creation and tax base revenue. Imagine the impact this would have towards pulling our country out of the current depression, and finally consider the morale Americans would possess with the pride of building a new super-efficient, technologically-forward future.

Thanks for reading. 

Blog 6 - Response to Against the Odds: Oral Contraception

Blog Stage 6 Assignment

Commentary & Response to “Politics: Not Worth My Vote – Against the Odds: Oral Contraceptives”

For our stage 6 blog, I have chosen to critique this article written by my peer. My background includes an Associate’s Degree in Emergency Medical Services Technology and 13 years of practicing prehospital emergency medicine. My interpretation of the article is the author’s opinion is the basic premise that President Obama and his staff are wasting resources and focus on the wrong problems. The author makes a few anecdotal and hollow comments about how there are greater problems with far larger social mores than contraception and pregnancy.

Unfortunately, I must begin this critique with some more elementary problems rather than the content. There are some marked, basic grammatical errors throughout the document. It starts with the very first word of the very first line. While I can look beyond the grammar and look more for the meaning, these issues do make the document tough to read and take credibility from the argument.

“Examine what the world coming to when our president and government is mandating oral contraceptives to be part of the preventative medicine in health care plans.”

As I said, the first word of the first sentence should be “Imagine”, not examine. But, let us imagine what the world must be coming to when our government has to mandate oral contraceptives in health care plans and family planning. There must be some inherent failure of a capitalist economy. I have written about this before. See my blog entry here. Moreover, much of this governmental intervention stemmed from pressure from a very large, very wealthy, and very influential lobbyist – the Catholic church. President Obama’s mandate stated that insurance companies must pay for preventative services, not the Church itself. This makes one wonder what dog the Church even has in the fight, other than fundamental beliefs.

Consider this: Obama received 79% of the Latino Catholic vote and 44% of the Caucasian Catholic vote. So, if the majority of the majority of the Catholic Church voted for someone who was trying to institute mandates contradictory to the Church’s tenets, what does THAT say about what the world is coming to… Moving along…

“There are better means of making other drugs or treatment free of charge than preventing future pregnancies.”

This sentence doesn’t really make much sense to begin with either. To be more specific, the above sentence doesn’t make sense - at all. I tried, really hard, to see the forest from the trees but I just could not understand what the author was trying to say.

“Pregnancy is not an ill ridden disease”

I agree fundamentally that pregnancy is not a disease but it is a significant medical condition that requires the care and oversight of a specialized physician. It also comes with complications that include a 25% spontaneous miscarriage rate for pregnancies under 12 weeks, hemorrhage, and eclampsia, all of which are a threat to the mother’s life.

“and sex is not a deadly medical emergency”

HIV and hepatitis are sexually contracted diseases that up to the last 10 years, were fatal. So actually, they are a deadly medical condition. Emergency, no. But, hypertension, hyperglycemia, dialysis, and thyroid conditions are not truly emergent in and of themselves.

“Our minds wonder why the president and the government express concern over the importance to support free birth control pills to insulin or medical equipment.”

No, my mind doesn’t wonder anything like the author stated. The government is not “expressing concern” of the importance of birth control pills over insulin and medical equipment. These are, in the most simple of terms, two separate arguments. The author may have made a more valid point by saying “the government is placing an excessive amount of concern regarding contraception; however, I feel there are far greater issues that deserve attention, such as insulin and necessary medical equipment”. Addressing the topic of insulin, medical devices, and other necessary drugs or interventions: Medicare and Medicaid both have extensive budgetary inclusions for thousands of medical conditions and medications. I have yet to meet any indigent patients who cannot receive their medications, except in the rare occasions where patients stated they could not meet their $5 deductible. Case in point: I had an 84 year old gentleman on medicare whose lymphoma chemo drug, Gleevic, cost $400/pill. That is $300,000/year. The man had to pay a $10/month copay. I have met thousands of patients over the years who are on Medicare and Medicaid and receive benefits for their conditions. His story is not unique. I can convey another person’s story whose dialysis and medications cost $610/day. He had to pay nothing because he was on Medicare. Before an attack is made on the cost of his treatment, remember this was a disabled, and i mean truly disabled man in his 30’s who could not work. The point is that most of the other interventions the author speaks of are inarguable far more expensive than oral contraceptives. My experience is that there is an exceedingly slim number of people who cannot receive what they need. Maybe they do not participate in the newest and greatest clinical chemo trials, but Medicare does not pay for clinical trials. It does pay for FDA-approved regimens.

Back to the topic regarding governmental involvement, let us remember the spirit behind the presidential mandate: the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancy is using contraception, ergo greatly reducing the chances of the mother having to even make the decision of having an abortion, which is a whole other topic.

Consider the usual women who consider having abortions. It is usually young women or women who were not planning on having children. It is logical that anyone actually planning on having children would not entertain the idea of aborting a fetus. Going back to the usual candidates, these women are unprepared to have children. Giving them an option to avoid making the decision of abortion just makes good sense, regardless of your personal beliefs. That is the entire flaw in the Catholic Church’s argument.

The reality is that people are going to do what they want. Women are going to have unprotected sex. There is also an exceedingly high correlation of pregnant women and lower socioeconomic class. We should not set them up for failure, and a really difficult decision, by not providing contraception. To remove contraception as an option, regardless of how it is paid for, is socially irresponsible.

Regarding who pays for the contraception, I will state this: if we assume tax dollars will pay for contraception, I am all for it. Why? Because the upfront cost of paying for contraception will greatly offset the long-term cost of raising a whole human on welfare. Granted, this assumes that once on welfare, always on welfare. However, that assumption is more of a generally accepted norm than a theory. Consider the long term cost to the tax payers of paying for 1, 2, 5, or even 8 kids per mother. If you think this doesn’t happen, you are exceedingly naive. I had a patient 2 days ago who was 39 years old, single mother, with 8 children. The entire family was on Medicaid, Food Stamps, and living in government housing.

You and I pay for that. Do you still think handing out birth control like candy, even at the tax payer’s expense is a bad idea? Nevermind the cost, consider the future of those children. Do you think those children have a stable, structured environment that is loving and nurturing? I am hard pressed to give you evidentiary proof, but I can tell you that I also called CPS (Child Protective Services) because of the squalid living conditions.

The last point I will make is this: consider if the woman is impoverished and a welfare recipient. How good of a chance do they have of improving their life through employment, education, public service, community service, or volunteerism if they are hindered by having unnecessary or unwanted children?

“They are just giving the green light to have tons of sex and no baby.”

This statement is rather silly but actually does make a point. The government is not sending any message saying “have all the sex you want”. But, if it were to, having contraception available to people would be a far smarter tactic than not, again regarding unwanted pregnancies.

“The citizens of the United States should not have to fund their promiscuous lives.”

I agree with the statement, but we already fund lots of promiscuity. I cite crooked politicians who abuse tax dollars, corporate tax loopholes and the outsourcing of jobs, and wildly out-of-control defense spending with zero oversight or accountability. That is far more pornographic than people having a good ol’ roll in the hay.

“What needs to happen with our health care is helping those who need high blood pressure medication, insulin for their diabetics’ needs or chemotherapy for cancer patients.”

I already addressed this issue earlier. This actually happens. A lot.

“These are the things that count because people can actually die without those types of medications and are costly.  A cancer patient will be more grateful for a free chemotherapy session to kill the cancer cells that consume their body”

Women can also die from lack of preventative medical care as I already addressed. The comment about cancer patients is speculative at best, but a logical and agreeable sentiment.

“I seriously doubt some young adult will die because she did not have sex or did not receive her dose of birth control pills.”

Again, people are going to have sex regardless.

“President Obama and the government seem concern that Horny Helen does not run out of birth control pills before she hits a fraternity house for a night of boozing and sex.  If that is their main concern, then the ill citizens of our county are in deep water.”

This final passage is hollow and speculative. If in fact we have to concern ourselves with Horny Helen’s romp at the frat house, pills and booze just increase the risk of accidental pregnancy, and ironically, the fun factor. However, if she is having unprotected sex, we also need to consider the real possibility of STDs. 1 in 4 college students have Herpes Simplex 2. If Horny Helen contracts that, she then needs to worry about receiving medication to suppress the viral contagion and sexual prophylactics to prevent spreading the disease. Lastly, we then have to worry about her contracting the HSV2 to her unborn child if delivered vaginally. Then we have a whole new set of problems.

Regarding the last sentence, our country is already in trouble. Oral contraceptives are a grain of sand on the shores of our country’s problems. We have far greater concerns. Perhaps if we educated our children on sexual awareness, health (both physical and sexual), and prevention (again, for both types of health) we can help direct their futures for a brighter, long-term future for our whole country. We need to reform our campaign finance laws. We need to decrease our national debt. We need to do a lot of things. What we don’t need to do is continue to facilitate babies having babies, the poor having more and more children, and we don’t need to arbitrarily involve ourselves in corporate decisions. However, this decision comes with a heavy price that affects a large demographic - women having sex.

I feel that Obama’s mandate was good and necessary. Thank you for reading.

Dear author - I hope you didn’t take this personally. I was awful rough on your piece but my assignment was to critique a peer’s work.   

The Problem with Capitalism

I love this country. Before you fly off the handle and label me a commie or a socialist, hear me out. Then, you can make an informed opinion about me. However, if you call me unAmerican, I might drag you out into the back alley and teach you a lesson in manners. Hell, you might even teach me a lesson; that USED to be the great thing about being a man - take an ass-whipping, learn from it, move along. Tragically, that same action will result in a felony assault charge and hence a nasty downward spiral into "the system". Here me out.

The "system" we know is a multi-headed beast akin to Ladon - atrociously complex and inefficient. My personal values include a desire for bureaucratic reduction through increased efficiency. We have fostered a system that takes YEARS for patent approval hindering small businesses and entrepreneurs. We have an immigration system that is staggeringly complex. Dare I say that we need more regulation of our markets for we already have a huge government. The actual solution is we need a far more efficient government in all levels.

Take the individual case of my friend Jane. Jane came from the United Kingdom. Jane is a college-educated, exceptionally smart woman whom English is her first language. She married an American. Her citizenship took over 2 years and was incredibly difficult and frustrating. Can you imagine, if it was that hard for an English-speaking, college educated person, how difficult the path for citizenship must be for a poor, non-English speaking, often illiterate person must be? Last I checked, we used to say "bring us your poor, your huddled masses", right?

Next, take the examples of smaller economies like construction. States' rights usually manage regulation of construction. Some require licensing, some require insurance, and some require nothing. This leaves the burden of regulation upon the individual to know what the state requires and that the consumer should look for. This is a problem when older people (such as the elderly) need to contract work. Several people come bid the job and capitalist theory states the lowest bid should get the job. But remember, you usually get what you pay for! Never mind dime-store advice, time and time again we hear about unscrupulous contractors taking the money and never finishing the job. This is becoming an epidemic across America. Consider the Northeast and the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Who is going to protect those who are already vulnerable and desperate? The government is already badly taxed from the hurricane as millions are without power and have lost their homes. If there were a federal mandate of contractors being licensed, insured, bonded, and registered with a national database, consumers could educate themselves on contractor documentation and have a consumer-rights liaison.

Democracy and capitalism have become the cornerstone of our society and I get a chuckle when I meet people that would fight to the death to defend it's perfection. Please understand this point very clearly - I would stand by their side and fight to the death to defend the fundamental reasons for having them; but they are not without their flaws. Capitalism, free trade, and supply/demand side economics have made our country into a global superpower. Our American spirit has influenced so many things. Our society has been infected and influenced by so many things uniquely American, from the Space Race (NASA), the Internet (Dell, Apple, Stanford U & the Internet, Facebook), fashion/retail (Levi's), engineering (highway infrastructure, roads, bridges) and our military (weapons design, Lockheed-Martin, Boeing). The USA has evolved into a multi-trillion dollar economy. The problem is that when dealing with numbers that big, the things that fall through the cracks are usually pretty big.

We can debate economics and point fingers all damn day long about why we are in a economic depression until the cows come home. While there is value in knowing history so one does not repeat it, the problem is that we need to control the hemorrhage now. We can deal with the why later. Currently we have to mitigate the threats that will kill our society and when we are spilling our economic life blood onto the floor, we need a surgeon. We cannot leave our economic exsanguination to being left alone like a capitalist model dictates - we need experienced intervention to manage the shock and impeding death.

Consider this: theory states that a non-regulated economy will create competition, therefore lowering prices to benefit the consumer. What has happened is that companies have been able to undercut most "mom n pop" providers and obtained market majority. From market majority has come market domination and establishment, or dare I say monopoly (even though monopolies were make illegal in the Gramm-Leach Bill 1999). This market dominance has thwarted any smaller competition as they simply cannot compete. Remember that these major players also possess large legal teams. Even if small companies wanted to compete, they know they are up against a legal and financial giant. Once market dominance is firmly rooted, the problems of capitalism take shape: downsizing, layoffs, unemployment and pension eradication. Remember, I allude to major market players, therefore layoffs affect thousands.

Take the example of Enron. 20,000 people lost their livelihood, homes, and futures on account of book-cooking. The accounting fraud on this energy company resulted in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The deceptive practices of a large company caused thousands in layoffs, hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs, and legislation to make sure it never happens again. If this were an isolated event, it would not be such an issue. However, recent history is littered with other examples such as Solyndra.

Both of the above cases are examples of accounting fraud which overinflated stock values. Keep in mind there is legislation and governmental regulatory agencies which are supposed to keep this sort of thing from happening. The Securities Exchange Commission is in charge of watching over the stock markets but the problem with the numbers game is it is a numbers game. There is one government agency to oversee tens of thousands of small, medium, and large public companies. That is a losing battle. 

The United States banking economy is an easy scapegoat to blame for the current state of our economy. Let's examine why a more efficient government regulation would be helpful. Historically our banks have been in the business of finance. Banks were originally barred from being affiliated with securities companies. In 1999, the Gramm-Leach Act removed the laws preventing banks from being merged with securities companies. This also allows banks to expand their holdings from an 11:1 ratio to a 33:1 ratio. When the real estate market began overvaluing commodities, banks holdings increased both from the overvaluation and the increased holding ratio allowance. When the global financial crisis hit, the banks had more holdings than they could cover financially. The expanded holdings ratio was unable to be covered by federally-backed securities due to two wars and other impeding domestic financial economies teetering on implosion.

My point is this: capitalism works in theory. Capitalism's architecture requires that business and industry moguls operate with integrity and ethics. The problem is that money and power breed greed. Economic tycoons have bastardized "the system" by lobbying, legislation, and sometimes lying in the name of profit and are calling it capitalism. If only a few were affected it would be an anomaly and we could move on. But, Tom Brokaw began a weekly segment called "The Fleecing of America" as the problem was becoming so rampant. One could make anecdotal statements about the current state of our economy as being the government's fault, Bush's fault, Obama's fault, Wall Street's fault or the bank's fault. It is actually kind of everybody's fault.

The solution is this: not an increase in blanket regulation. We have a large enough government. What we need is a more effective governmental regulation. We also need the leaders of economies to be less greedy, less deceptive, more honest, and more stand-up. Cooperation is what is needed to save not just our economy, but our society. We need a government to protect not only the corporation but to protect the individual from the corporation. We can even deduce that sometimes the government out to protect the corporation from itself.