Bill introduced by US senators to create 'startup visa' for entrepreneurs

New legislation, if enacted, will make obtaining a work visa in the US much easier for immigrant entrepreneurs.
The StartUp Visa Act of 2011 would allow an immigrant entrepreneur to receive a two year visa as long as he or she can show that a qualified U.S. investor is willing to invest in the immigrant's venture or can show that the business has generated at least $100,000 in annual sales from the US.
The new legislation expands on an earlier bill by allowing H-1B visa holders and entrepreneurs living outside the United States with a market presence in the country to take advantage of the startup visa.

"Every job-creating American business started as an idea in the mind of an entrepreneur. We need to keep and bring more of those ideas to our shores where they can put Americans to work. Global competition for talent and investment grows more intense daily and the United States must step up or be left behind," said Senator John Kerry, co-author of the bill.
"Creating a new magnet for innovations and innovators to come to the United States and create jobs here will offer our economy a double shot in the arm – robust job creation at home and reaffirmation that we're the world's best place to do business," he added.
The startup visa would grant three options to people looking to enter the United States or lengthen their stay. Below is the text directly from the Senator John Kerry's press release:
Option One: Immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. would be eligible to apply for a StartUp Visa if a qualified U.S. investor agrees to financially sponsor their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $100,000. After two years, their business must have created 5 new jobs and raised not less than $500,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $500,000 in revenue.
Option Two: Immigrant entrepreneurs currently in the U.S. on an unexpired H-1B visa; OR immigrant entrepreneurs currently in the U.S. who have completed a graduate level degree in science, technology, engineering, math, computer science, or other relevant academic discipline from an accredited United States college, university, or other institution of higher education would be eligible for a StartUp Visa if;
They demonstrate annual income of not less than roughly $30,000 or the possession of assets of not less than roughly $60,000; and
Have proven that a qualified U.S. investor agrees to financially back their entrepreneurial venture with a minimum investment of $20,000.
After two years, their business must have created 3 new jobs and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue.
Option Three: Immigrant entrepreneurs living outside the U.S. would be eligible to apply for a StartUp Visa if they have controlling interest of a company in a foreign country that has generated, during the most recent 12-month period, not less than $100,000 in revenue from sales in the U.S.
After two years, their business must have created 3 new jobs and raised not less than $100,000 in additional capital investment or generate not less than $100,000 in revenue.

Read More : http://www.workpermit.com/news/2010-05-26/us/us-immigration-issues-new-green-card.htm

Nuclear power is dirty power, period | GoDanRiver.com

Following the Japanese nuclear plant catastrophe, there has been a plethora of American newspaper editorials cautioning citizens not to turn against nuclear power because, the editorials claim, it is the only clean energy source available.

Among these was an editorial in a neighboring newspaper, The News & Advance of Lynchburg. Two of the largest employers in the Lynchburg area, Areva and Babcock & Wilcox, are nuclear industries. Losing these companies, I am sure, would impact the Lynchburg economy as did the loss of Dan River Inc. in Danville.

A fact not mentioned about nuclear energy by those advocating its use is there has been a growing volume of comments about the capital cost of nuclear-powered electric plants becoming prohibitively expensive.

For example, Duke Energy, in neighboring North Carolina, announced in January its purchase of Progress Energy, a Florida company, subject to regulatory approval, resulting in what was stated to be the largest electric company in the United States and the third largest nationwide in nuclear generation capacity. The new company had a market value of $36 billion.

Duke wants to build two nuclear reactors in Cherokee County, S.C., and Progress wants to build two in Levy County, Fla., and two in North Carolina. The projected cost of the Florida project has already passed $20 billion and the South Carolina project is currently projected at $11 billion. So the total $36 billion market value of the company would not be enough money to cover the projected cost of the three new nuclear installations!

Imagine the electricity rate to consumers for a plant that cost in excess of $11 billion or $20 billion! Already there have been references to ”the wallets of captive ratepayers” as a source for financing new nuclear plants (Congressional Record, Vol 149, Part II, page 14178).

In France and China, the nuclear-powered electric plants are government-owned, and China currently has under construction more than 25 new nuclear plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. The important words are “under construction.” Most other nuclear plants mentioned in public sources seem to be in the planning stage and can take some years in actual construction. Duke Energy is projecting a 2021 completion date for the Cherokee County, N.C., plant that is in the planning stage, having already spent over $100 million in planning activities.

The argument in favor of nuclear-generated electricity is that it is clean and nonpolluting. What about the spent fuel rods at the Japanese plants in the storage ponds from which the water was lost and which were reported to be spewing radiation into the environment? And what about those pesky radiation-spewing accidents/natural disasters at the nuclear plants the public is assured will never happen when the plants are under construction … yet regularly seem to happen anyway?

Remember the United States has no permanent disposal method nor site for the spent fuel rods — now in storage — at the various U. S. nuclear plants.

Some developments in coal as an energy source are interesting. The Polk plant unit 6 at Tampa, Fla., is considered a demonstration site for an integrated gasification combined-cycle electrical plant using coal and biomass as fuel.

The IGCC electric plant does not burn the coal. Rather it uses a thermo-chemical process to produce the gas stage from the coal. The resulting gas is stated to be virtually free of fuel-bound nitrogen. Pollutants, such as sulfur (98 percent removed), particulates and trace minerals, are removed in IGCC processing and sold as by-products for other industrial uses. IGCC results in a small stream of carbon dioxide, which can be captured. The slag is sold for use in building roads or manufacturing wallboard and the plant has “zero process water discharge.” A second such unit, producing twice the electricity, has been considered, at a projected cost of $2 billion. (Sources: U. S. Department of Energy and Tampa Electric)

“Natural gas is the fastest growing fuel for generating electricity. More than 90 percent of the power plants to be built in the next 20 years likely will be fueled by natural gas. Natural gas is also likely to be a primary fuel for distributed power generators — mini-power plants that would be sited close to where the electricity is needed.” (Quoted from Internet site of U. S. Department of Energy.)

Read More: Nuclear power is dirty power, period | GoDanRiver.com