We favor safety.  (Who doesn't?)
 

We encourage conservation (Who doesn't?)  However, we battle the charlatans who tell us that conservation is a source of energy.

We are pro-energy. However, we battle the charlatans who want to substitute piddle power for real energy sources.
 
 

 

We are pro-environment.  Solar projects almost unfailingly have enormous environmental impact.

 

There is no such thing as "safe energy."  To ask for it is to ask for gasoline that doesn't burn.  We only request that the safety of energy sources be judged on the basis of the same output.
 

 

Perhaps there is global warming, and perhaps there is a human influence, and perhaps that is bad.  But we are not on the global-warming bandwagon.
 

We are pro-safety, and assert that all sources of energy are safer than doing without. We oppose "safety" measures that ultimately cost lives, especially those that substitute fickle solar toys for reliable energy sources. 

We encourage conservation, but do not regard it as a source of energy. (Is dieting a source of nutrition?) Not everybody agrees with this.  Learn how  the dinosaurs disappeared! 
 
 

We are pro-energy, but are critical of piddle-power projects that masquerade as significant energy sources.  For example, the Department Opposed to Energy (DOE) opposes the use of nuclear and all fossil fuels, but has high acclaim for the Solar-II project, which allegedly produces 10 megawatts of electricity. If a 130-acre project producing a paltry 1% as much power as a serious power plant weren't bad enough, the 10-MW figure applies only to the mid-day sun; overall, Solar-II produces a mere 1.6 megawatts around-the-clock average power. 

We are pro-environment, but that doesn't make us favor DOE's solar toys. Scaling Solar-II up to a serious size --- 1000 megawatts around the clock --- would require 100 square miles and enormous environmental impact. By comparison, Northeast Utilities (as just one example) produces about 2500 megawatts on less than one square mile. 

We battle Washington bureaucrats who stifle energy development in order to polish their image as "tough regulators." Recently, for example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has gotten into a dither about an unbelievably tiny 0.28 micrograms of plutonium in a test sample that was evidently buried with low-level waste over twenty years ago. They use this as yet another excuse to keep billions of watts of electricity from being generated. Such fussiness makes good press but kills people because it substitutes more hazardous sources for nuclear power while the NRC fusses ad infinitum about trivialities. 

But does our pro-nuclear stance make us jump onto the global-warming bandwagon? Not at all! There is no credible evidence that the temperature rise of the last century is anything out of the ordinary, and even less that a warmer earth would be less habitable than it is now. Nor will we attempt to scare readers with sea-rise, for it amounts to only the thickness of a nickel per year, as it has for millennia.