Absolutely no new drilling (even though EVERY other country in the world does it).
No new nuclear plants.
His answer to high gas prices is windfall profits tax. Whatever the fuck that is…sounds like something that will just result in higher prices at the pump.
….and now his most brilliant new solution to the energy problems yet!
its digital, son and paid for by the government
why should the American people give the oil companies any new land, if they have 30 million acres of existing land that they aren’t even drilling on?
And you do realize we won’t even be able to drill offshore, because there aren’t any new rigs available for the next 5 years?
Oh… hmmm …. let’s ignore the actual SUSTAINABLE CLEAN ENERGY he is an advocate of.
|
why should the American people give the oil companies any new land, if they have 30 million acres of existing land that they aren’t even drilling on?
And you do realize we won’t even be able to drill offshore, because there aren’t any new rigs available for the next 5 years? |
No point drilling on land that doesn’t have oil! just because they have lots of land doesn’t mean they have oil there.
I think everyone’s concern is whether or not they’ve even checked. If they have, then the issue is dead. But if they haven’t, then they certainly should before being given any more land.
wait, wait, wait…..you bitch that we wouldn’t even see oil from ANWR and offshore oil drilling for 10 years and you’re trumping up his sustainable clean energy?
Yeah. If the timespan is equivalent, why waste the investment into THE ONE THAT RUNS OUT.
Common sense FTW…
|
Yeah. If the timespan is equivalent, why waste the investment into THE ONE THAT RUNS OUT.
Common sense FTW… |
So, how does that help us now? …and you act as if it’s IMPOSSIBLE to do both at the same time.
then they should give up the rights to the land. The problem is they want everything, keep the rights to the land, get new rights to the offshore, and there are no guarantees they’ll develop any of that new properties
When did I say it did? are you trying to imply that these CRAZY ideas that Obama rejects would help us NOW?
Did I say they were mutually exclusive? No … I said it was foolish to invest in one, given the circumstances.
10 years from now= New Oil starts coming in, at which point it’ll be worth even less than it is now(by which I mean all that investment, but we’ll still be importing a higher % of oil than we do now)
OR
10 years from now = New sustainable energy, that can be further expanded if we need it to, that won’t run out, that’ll cut the costs of gas all across the board due to the fact that gas will need to compete with the cheaper energy sources
|
When did I say it did? are you trying to imply that these CRAZY ideas that Obama rejects would help us NOW?
Did I say they were mutually exclusive? No … I said it was foolish to invest in one, given the circumstances. |
The new Oil would be online a lot sooner than that, not to mention all of the jobs that would be created as a result of new nuclear facilities and more drilling.
His opposition to nuclear power is ridiculous, his entire energy policy sucks.
|
Yeah. If the timespan is equivalent, why waste the investment into THE ONE THAT RUNS OUT.
Common sense FTW… |
How about trying for both? Why does it have to be one or the other?
So? the government doesn’t lose in this deal, the oil companies have to pay to lease these lands. If they want to pay and not look for oil then the government gets millions anyway.
|
10 years from now= New Oil starts coming in, at which point it’ll be worth even less than it is now(by which I mean all that investment, but we’ll still be importing a higher % of oil than we do now)
OR 10 years from now = New sustainable energy, that can be further expanded if we need it to, that won’t run out, that’ll cut the costs of gas all across the board due to the fact that gas will need to compete with the cheaper energy sources |
nice logical fallacy
He didn’t say they were mutually exclusive. Nice fail at identifying fallacies.
The fallacy is that we can find and implement a solution in the next 10 years that will remove our dependancy on oil.
At most we will have multiple solutions that reduce our demand for oil.
"or"
I have an honest question regarding this ‘windfall profits tax’ who is going to really pay for that, the oil companies, or the consumers?
Damn you mean I can conserve more by doing things I already do?
Forum posts aren’t exactly doctoral dissertations
total bullshit on the "no nuclear plants", too, of course.
|
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "every pound per square inch of tire underinflation wastes 4 million gallons of gas daily in the U.S." Survey information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 27% of the cars on the road have a significantly under-inflated tire. Obviously, Obama wasn’t arguing that inflating tires would reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil — but he was saying such a move would save as much energy as drilling for oil in the continental shelf would provide. Is that true? If it does save gas, and it is a common problem, well, then what would the total savings be if we all were a bit more diligent about checking the pressure very morning? Frank Verrastro, Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), says that it’s complicated, of course. "The ‘x’ factors here are the fact that Sen. Obama used both tire inflation and tune ups in his remarks, and no one knows what volume you could/would get from additional drilling in the outer continental shelf," Verrastro says. As of now, all we have for the OCS are resource estimates, but no production. Using the website FuelEconomy.gov, Verrastro writes, we can estimate that "the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage) savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%) is 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day." Current crude oil and condensate production in the OCS is about 1.25 million barrels per day. So… What does that mean? It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed current output from the OCS. However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road — as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics — and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says. "So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output," he rules. "Finally, without knowing what production volumes could be expected from lifting the ban on OCS drilling moratoria, it’s impossible to assert that taking these fuel savings actions would exceed future offshore oil volumes, and in fact, one might argue that the combination of achieving these savings AND developing new supply would doubly enhance US energy security." - Jake Tapper and Natalie Gewargis |
nuclear power "in the mix" is his way of having his cake and eating it too. We currently have nuclear power, so yeah, it’s already in the mix He never says anything about expanding it though. He doesn’t want more nuclear power plants built or he would have said as much.
Obama has said, "I have not ruled out nuclear… but only [would support it] so far as it is clean and safe."
So what miracle invention or piece of information is he waiting on before he deems it clean and safe enough to expand upon? Like I said, he’s blowing smoke up your ass.
Nuclear power is clean and safe and there’s plenty of literature out there for him to read and make a fucking decision.
to quote the Reverend: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."
|
So what miracle invention or piece of information is he waiting on before he deems it clean and safe enough to expand upon? Like I said, he’s blowing smoke up your ass.
Nuclear power is clean and safe and there’s plenty of literature out there for him to read and make a fucking decision. to quote the Reverend: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." |
It’s dishonest to act like he’s ruled it out when you’re assuming he doesn’t mean what he says (with nothing to back that up other than "me hate liberals")
No it’s not. There’s enough information available to him to make a fucking decision on this. He’s trying to have it both ways. I don’t see how you can see this any other way.
What is he waiting for? What is he unsure of? What isn’t clean or safe enough for him to make a decision one way or another?
|
No it’s not. There’s enough information available to him to make a fucking decision on this. He’s trying to have it both ways. I don’t see how you can see this any other way.
What is he waiting for? What is he unsure of? What isn’t clean or safe enough for him to make a decision one way or another? |
The biggest problems he talks about are the fact that nuclear sites are great targets for terrorists (truck bomb at a waste dump = half of kansas ends up with leukemia) and there is still debate about long-term storage of the waste.
One of the problems I have with people (like you) acting as if Nuclear is a magic bullet, is that usable Uranium supplies are as limited as oil, so going full-nuke and abandoning technologies like solar and wind will result in another crisis down the line.
furthermore, not only is nuclear expensive, but there’s a lot of work left to be done on the safety front
|
In March 2002, after the government had allowed a delay in safety inspections past a December 31, 2001 deadline, it was discovered that boric acid had eaten almost all the way through the 6½-inch thick reactor pressure vessel head. A breach might have partially flooded the reactor’s containment building with reactor coolant, and resulted in emergency safety procedures to protect from core damage. In 2005 the NRC ranked this occurrence as the tenth (excluding TMI) most likely incident to have lead to a nuclear disaster in the event of a subsequent failure.[9] |
you’ve carefully analyzed mccain’s nuclear promises, right?
since you’re such a fan of nukes.
|
The biggest problems he talks about are the fact that nuclear sites are great targets for terrorists (truck bomb at a waste dump = half of kansas ends up with leukemia) and there is still debate about long-term storage of the waste.
One of the problems I have with people (like you) acting as if Nuclear is a magic bullet, is that usable Uranium supplies are as limited as oil, so going full-nuke and abandoning technologies like solar and wind will result in another crisis down the line. |
terrists
…again, nations like France aren’t afraid of nuclear power, just like the rest of the world is more than willing to allow drilling, and there is absolutely nothing keeping people from developing solar and wind power. Well…other than environmentalists
|
terrists
…again, nations like France aren’t afraid of nuclear power, just like the rest of the world is more than willing to allow drilling, and there is absolutely nothing keeping people from developing solar and wind power. Well…other than environmentalists |
just the kind of well-thought-out and insightful response I’ve come to expect from you.
What was inaccurate?
His post was dead-on. Hell, Kennedy opposed the offshore "Cape Wind" project for years. I’m sure his family’s ownership of several oil companies had no bearing on that…
Tree huggers are against wind, because of the visual clutter and risk to birds.
and the terrorists are a semi-reasonable concern, since nuclear waste currently has to be shipped across the country for storage and disposal. bombing a truck on a highway or a rail car wouldn’t be out of the question.
Then again, I think people assign too much power and sophistication to the terrorists. They’re just committed primitives with access to drug money and weapons. 9/11 was effective, but it isn’t the world’s most advanced plot, whereas intercepting nuclear fuel probably would be a lot more complicated. Still, there’s probably some redneck that actually drives the truck that could be compromised easily, so maybe it’s a good thing to be worried about.
|
What was inaccurate?
His post was dead-on. Hell, Kennedy opposed the offshore "Cape Wind" project for years. I’m sure his family’s ownership of several oil companies had no bearing on that… Tree huggers are against wind, because of the visual clutter and risk to birds. |
wasn’t the story because kennedy didn’t want his view fucked up? That’s the only thing even remotely like what tank was talking about that I’ve heard of.
I’d hardly classify him as an environmentalist, and really, I don’t think that environmentalists deserve any important fraction of the blame for slow progress on wind and solar energy.
In other words, you have no good response.
to what? smileyfaces about terrists and meaningless accusations that "environmentalists" are the ones holding back solar and wind?
What kind of response would be appropriate to bullshit like that? A fart?
then you’re not paying attention.
|
to what? smileyfaces about terrists and meaningless accusations that "environmentalists" are the ones holding back solar and wind?
What kind of response would be appropriate to bullshit like that? A fart? |
It’s quite ironic that you’re not trumpeting terrorist attacks as a reason not to do something. Just wanted to point that out first and foremost.
…and YES, environmentalists ARE opposing wind power. Every time they go to put one up they pull a wetland, migratory bird or endangered bat out of their ass saying it would kill them.
You’re really showing your ignorance here.
|
then you’re not paying attention.
|
wait, NIMBY landowners are environmentalists now?
is there any evidence this is having a significant effect on wind power?
From your own article:
|
Frank Maisano, a Washington energy lobbyist, said national wind opponents are not influential |
what about solar?
are these the only people in the way of wind power, as you claim?
O wait, Greenpeace was protesting
|
TOM BEARDEN: But some prominent environmentalists adamantly oppose Cape Wind. Earlier this fall, Greenpeace demonstrators confronted Robert Kennedy Jr.’s sailboat, heckling the environmental attorney |
oh wait…
|
for his opposition to the Cape Wind project, despite his long-standing support for alternative energy. Critics say Kennedy and other powerful New Englanders, who have waterfront properties here, are simply exhibiting the so-called "not in my backyard" syndrome. |
seriously…. environmentalists are stopping wind and solar, and they’re the only ones doing it.
What retarded conservative radio show did you pick THAT one up from? Rush?
What’s the irony? I"m lost in the double negatives.
|
wait, NIMBY landowners are environmentalists now?
is there any evidence this is having a significant effect on wind power? what about solar? are these the only people in the way of wind power, as you claim? |
Solar has a long way to go. I used to live near a solar plant and have toured it multiple times.
Did you know that our solar power plant’s are not efficient enough to survive without government assistance and natural gas? In fact, in order to get the government subsidies, they have to be at least x% solar. Lets say 70% solar.
They manage their systems so that every year they are exactly 70% solar. This way they get the government subsidies and get to use a more feasible natural gas.
Solar power is not as feasible of a solution as you may think,yet. Even the roof panels would not be very cost efficient if you didnt take the subsidies and tax rebates into consideration.
If nuclear power plants are so bad, I should move. I have lived near one for over 10 years. Strange that the terrorists havent found it yet. It looks like two big boobs on the side of the road.
|
what about solar?
are these the only people in the way of wind power, as you claim? |
that would be the government
|
seriously…. environmentalists are stopping wind and solar, and they’re the only ones doing it.
What retarded conservative radio show did you pick THAT one up from? Rush? |
you’re as conceited as you are retarded. I saw it going on first hand when they put them up in west virginia. People were screaming bloody murder that they would kill migratory birds.
|
that would be the government
|
Yeah I’d heard about that one, since it’s actually having a big effect.
How much you want to bet that the guy in charge of this "environmental impact" policy is an actual liberal environmentalist vs. a former oil-company lobbyist appointed by bush?
and did that stop the windmills being put up?
|
Solar has a long way to go. I used to live near a solar plant and have toured it multiple times.
Did you know that our solar power plant’s are not efficient enough to survive without government assistance and natural gas? In fact, in order to get the government subsidies, they have to be at least x% solar. Lets say 70% solar. They manage their systems so that every year they are exactly 70% solar. This way they get the government subsidies and get to use a more feasible natural gas. Solar power is not as feasible of a solution as you may think,yet. Even the roof panels would not be very cost efficient if you didnt take the subsidies and tax rebates into consideration. If nuclear power plants are so bad, I should move. I have lived near one for over 10 years. Strange that the terrorists havent found it yet. It looks like two big boobs on the side of the road. |
solar has come a long way and big breakthroughs are made every day.
thank god for MIT (check the date on the story, too)
They’ve come to depend on the government because they’re moving forward faster than is cost-effective, which is okay since we need the technology NOW rather than when it’s profitable (which will be soon if gas prices keep going up).
Solar/Wind is actually already cheaper than nukes (depending on how sunny/windy it is). I had a long discussion with tekdragon about that in this thread:
I said they opposed wind power, you said it’s bullshit. You were wrong.
if you want to parse words, at least do it right.
I said "stopping" not "opposing"
there are idiots out there that oppose anything.
|
if you want to parse words, at least do it right.
I said "stopping" not "opposing" there are idiots out there that oppose anything. |
You’re the one that made that mistake. I said oppose all along.
Your post that started all of this said that environmentalists were keeping people from developing wind and solar.
why do you do this to yourself?
|
its digital, son and paid for by the government |
no one liked my Obama tire gauge
energy policy gets brought up like every other thread so ill once agine say something but keep it short: we should go after EVERYTHING " solar wind nuclear and oil and gas" and it would be stuiped not to
pretty much applies to any of your posts
why are you such an Obama sackrider? why do you like him so much?
How did you determine sackrider-ness?
Half the threads in DIAC are started by him posting shit about Obama and how great he is. Just wondering what his reasons were for supporting him.
most of his policies are in line with what I want to see done.
Also I’m really opposed to a lot of what McCain wants, so I’d support a much worse candidate than obama pretty vigorously if it meant different policies than mccain’s.
|
most of his policies are in line with what I want to see done.
Also I’m really opposed to a lot of what McCain wants, so I’d support a much worse candidate than obama pretty vigorously if it meant different policies than mccain’s. |
May I ask what policies those are?
maybe once you get an av.
since you’re such a fan of my threads, why don’t you look through them to get information at this point.
|
most of his policies are in line with what I want to see done.
Also I’m really opposed to a lot of what McCain wants, so I’d support a much worse candidate than obama pretty vigorously if it meant different policies than mccain’s. |
+ 1 for being honest….
tbh you do make alot of post about obama but doesnt bother me any
|
maybe once you get an av.
since you’re such a fan of my threads, why don’t you look through them to get information at this point. |
Figures, I guess you support his awesome energy policy then huh?
|
+ 1 for being honest….
tbh you do make alot of post about obama but doesnt bother me any |
I did criticise obama pretty damn strongly over FISA
but yeah, I generally support him over mccain day in and out. I spend a lot of time trying to post actual information to combat the ridiculous shit you see tossed around-"Obama gonna raise my taxes" etc.
damn, no one??
cause most of those 30 million acres doesn’t have jack shit in it
that’s what they were saying 5 years ago
The oil companies.
|
Your post that started all of this said that environmentalists were keeping people from developing wind and solar.
why do you do this to yourself? |
My main point was that there is nothing keeping us from developing solar and wind power anyhow before you went off on the pussyhurt tangent of environmentalist bickering. We can have both more nuclear power (which Obama doesn’t really want) AND wind and solar power. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
then why do you bitch so much that Obama wants to pursue solar and wind strongly?
Also, if that’s the point you’re trying to make, maybe that’s the point you should make, and if I call you out on the environmentalist shit say "I was exaggerating, that’s not the point I’m trying to make." rather than defending it with anything you can think of, attempting to deny what you said, and then saying it’s not important anyway.
What’s your opinion on McCain’s nuclear proposals?
|
then why do you bitch so much that Obama wants to pursue solar and wind strongly?
Also, if that’s the point you’re trying to make, maybe that’s the point you should make, and if I call you out on the environmentalist shit say "I was exaggerating, that’s not the point I’m trying to make." rather than defending it with anything you can think of, attempting to deny what you said, and then saying it’s not important anyway. What’s your opinion on McCain’s nuclear proposals? |
Where have I ever bitched about Obama trying to pursue solar and wind?
We got sidetracked, but that’s what I eventually did above, is it not?
McCain wants to bring 45 new nuclear reactors online by 2030. Obama wants to sit on the line and make it look like he is both for and opposes nuclear power, which is bullshit. He has no intentions of expanding the nuclear power or he would have said as much. If his concerns are safety, then why doesn’t he propose some sort of new safety measure or at least give some more info as to why he hasn’t made a fucking decision on this in spite of a dearth of information.
|
furthermore, not only is nuclear expensive, but there’s a lot of work left to be done on the safety front
|
I hope you tread real lightly on the topic of safety and nuclear power while I’m around. I’m happy to answer questions, but I wouldn’t get into the business of blithely questioning it based on what’s on wikipedia.
|
Where have I ever bitched about Obama trying to pursue solar and wind?
We got sidetracked, but that’s what I eventually did above, is it not? McCain wants to bring 45 new nuclear reactors online by 2030. Obama wants to sit on the line and make it look like he is both for and opposes nuclear power, which is bullshit. He has no intentions of expanding the nuclear power or he would have said as much. If his concerns are safety, then why doesn’t he propose some sort of new safety measure or at least give some more info as to why he hasn’t made a fucking decision on this in spite of a dearth of information. |
Obama has given the info that he is concerned with safety and storage.
I would be hesitant to let a constitutional lawyer/politician be the one to design my nuclear plants safety and storage programs. Wouldn’t you?
I don’t think I crossed any lines by pointing out that incidents have occurred very recently and the whole "we had three mile island but we have fixed everything and there’s no risk" approach is silly.
We might be very careful with our nukes, but the problem is you have to be perfect because of the risks involved.
|
Where have I ever bitched about Obama trying to pursue solar and wind?
We got sidetracked, but that’s what I eventually did above, is it not? McCain wants to bring 45 new nuclear reactors online by 2030. Obama wants to sit on the line and make it look like he is both for and opposes nuclear power, which is bullshit. He has no intentions of expanding the nuclear power or he would have said as much. If his concerns are safety, then why doesn’t he propose some sort of new safety measure or at least give some more info as to why he hasn’t made a fucking decision on this in spite of a dearth of information. |
The fucked up thing to me, and anyone in the utility business, when we read these sorts of statements is stuff like "I want to bring xx plants online by yy." Like they have a single fucking thing to do with the construction of power generating stations of any kind. Utilities decide all of that stuff. We decide how much power we need, where we need it, and we figure out what kind of generation we want. The federal government has fuckall to do with determining anything. The only federal involvement is regulators, but they are not decision makers.
What Obama is doing is smart. He’s not committing either way because he knows that doing so will cost him votes one way or the other. In reality, he’d be pretty fucking stupid to publicly oppose the new plant processes already underway.
|
The fucked up thing to me, and anyone in the utility business, when we read these sorts of statements is stuff like "I want to bring xx plants online by yy." Like they have a single fucking thing to do with the construction of power generating stations of any kind. Utilities decide all of that stuff. We decide how much power we need, where we need it, and we figure out what kind of generation we want. The federal government has fuckall to do with determining anything. The only federal involvement is regulators, but they are not decision makers.
What Obama is doing is smart. He’s not committing either way because he knows that doing so will cost him votes one way or the other. In reality, he’d be pretty fucking stupid to publicly oppose the new plant processes already underway. |
well from an economic perspective, McCain’s plan of massive government assistance (I’ve read 125 million per year to each plant in tax credits, 2 billion or more in construction loan assistance) to nukes would certainly lead to more construction.
We both know Humungus is useless without Wikipedia…
Emfuse, what are your thoughts on the ongoing experiments of nuclear fusion? I believe the Lawence facility is in it’s final stages of construction. Do you think this experiment will produce the results we all wish to see?
|
I don’t think I crossed any lines by pointing out that incidents have occurred very recently and the whole "we had three mile island but we have fixed everything and there’s no risk" approach is silly.
We might be very careful with our nukes, but the problem is you have to be perfect because of the risks involved. |
Nobody said there is no risk. Every nuclear utility has a staff of risk analysts at their plants or central offices whose JOBS are risk assessment. Nuclear power is not safe because "nothing will ever happen", it’s safe because we design these plants with incredible means of protecting the safety of the public and train our personnel to have excellent training at doing that very job. The number one priority of nuclear plants for any unusual circumstance is protecting the health and safety of the public and we do that by having incredibly high operating standards compared to other industries.
Lots of people lost their jobs over Davis Besse. Some folks were fined and a few ended up in jail. That’s what happens when you neglect your regulatory obligations in this business.
Congress signed legislation to subsidize new construction with the Energy Policy Act of 05 already. That’s why the nuclear renaissance is already underway.
|
We both know Humungus is useless without Wikipedia…
Emfuse, what are your thoughts on the ongoing experiments of nuclear fusion? I believe the Lawence facility is in it’s final stages of construction. Do you think this experiment will produce the results we all wish to see? |
I did my study focus in fusion and opted to not pursue that career path because of funding problems and lack of interest. I didn’t want to spend half my life writing grant requests and trying to do something of incredible scale and importance without incredible funding and international interest.
|
Nobody said there is no risk. Every nuclear utility has a staff of risk analysts at their plants or central offices whose JOBS are risk assessment. Nuclear power is not safe because "nothing will ever happen", it’s safe because we design these plants with incredible means of protecting the safety of the public and train our personnel to have excellent training at doing that very job. The number one priority of nuclear plants for any unusual circumstance is protecting the health and safety of the public and we do that by having incredibly high operating standards compared to other industries.
Lots of people lost their jobs over Davis Besse. Some folks were fined and a few ended up in jail. That’s what happens when you neglect your regulatory obligations in this business. |
Yeah I’m not about to criticize your views on nukes, I’m taking issue with Tank.
And of course, regardless of the punishments meted out, it still happened and was (apparently) close to a disaster.
Indicating that maybe further investment into nuke safety (as obama is proposing) would be a great thing, contrary to what Tank seems to believe.
Is there enough uranium around for a big expansion of nuclear (especially if it catches on in other countries)
And what is being done about reprocessing and storage of waste? And what is this thorium i have heard about
|
Yeah I’m not about to criticize your views on nukes, I’m taking issue with Tank.
And of course, regardless of the punishments meted out, it still happened and was (apparently) close to a disaster. Indicating that maybe further investment into nuke safety (as obama is proposing) would be a great thing, contrary to what Tank seems to believe. |
It was not really close to a disaster. If that last 1/8th of an inch of steel opened up then they would have had a mess to clean up in their reactor building from the reactor coolant leakage, but it would not have been anywhere close to threatening the health and safety of the public.
What happened after that was that most of the PWRs in the country have to replace their reactor vessel heads and the inspection criteria for installed ones got tighter. We don’t need any politicians telling us how to do things, thanks. We can solve our own problems and have been doing so ever since TMI.
the consumers will be the final payers of the windfall profits tax. exxon has a profit margin to maintain, so any tax increases will be passed onto the consumers in the form of higher gas prices. same is true if you cut exxons tax breaks and subsidies
You don’t know economics.
|
Is there enough uranium around for a big expansion of nuclear (especially if it catches on in other countries)
And what is being done about reprocessing and storage of waste? And what is this thorium i have heard about |
Yes
Uranium prices and increased demand have been leading to lots of new activity with Uranium mining.
Reprocessing is still being considered, but there’s nothing definite yet. Idiotic environmentalists have real trouble dissociating waste reprocessing and nuclear weapons, so the idea makes them freak out and go crying to the democrats to stop them. Idiots…
Certain nuclides of thorium can be used as reactor fuel, but no western nations have done much serious research into building thorium reactor based plants. India is looking into thorium, though.
That’s not what you said earlier, you said he would only support nuclear power if it were clean and safe. That’s quite a leap you’ve made to saying he wants to invest into nuke safety. When did he say this?
Sorry, I meant "investments and improvements in nuke safety" etc, not that Obama was going to do it himself.
if obama is going to support nuclear power if its clean and safe, why isn’t he supporting it now?
Politics
yeah, I said that back on page 2
|
Nuclear power is clean and safe and there’s plenty of literature out there for him to read and make a fucking decision.
to quote the Reverend: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls." |
Although you did draw a different conclusion, that under Obama no new nukes would be built.
I still believe he opposes them and is hiding behind the fascia of safety concerns.
That’s a really odd use of fascia, and I don’t care what you believe with no evidence.
It’s not an entirely baseless concern, to be fair. Every anti I’ve ever met is a leftist. Quite a bit of the Democratic party leans away from nuclear power and it’s not really a secret. I’d say there is a fair chance that Obama leans anti, but that he’s playing his cards right and not committing to one viewpoint or another.
Good possibilty; he’s never committed to anything that might cost him votes.
you are an idiot.
Prove me wrong? You can’t, because your "Saviour" keeps proving me right.
You’re the ignorant sackrider, refusing to see that Leftist turd for the fraud he is.
|
Prove me wrong? You can’t, because your "Saviour" keeps proving me right.
You’re the ignorant sackrider, refusing to see that Leftist turd for the fraud he is. |
Your position: Obama has never committed to a single position that could cost him votes.
That is plainly ludicrous, and your attempt to get on a high horse and call me blind to the truth is pretty typical of the scum on this forum.
|
Your position: Obama has never committed to a single position that could cost him votes.
That is plainly ludicrous, and your attempt to get on a high horse and call me blind to the truth is pretty typical of the scum on this forum. |
He’s brought "pandering" to the level of an art form.
This is true, regardless what you think of me ().
So, disagreeing with "Saint" Barack, and calling him what he is, is "scum"?
Fine, that’s Mister Scum to you…
|
He’s brought "pandering" to the level of an art form.
This is true, regardless what you think of me (). So, disagreeing with "Saint" Barack, and calling him what he is, is "scum"? Fine, that’s Mister Scum to you… |
I’m sure you level an appropriate weight of criticism for pandering upon McCain. Right?
the guy that’s compromised all of his principles and is running as the antithesis of the 2000 incarnation of himself, right?
I don’t deny that Obama has pandered to some degree, but I think you badly miss the mark.
And no, you’re scum for thinking you are so much better informed and more open-minded than I am, when it is clearly not the case.
|
I’m sure you level an appropriate weight of criticism for pandering upon McCain. Right?
the guy that’s compromised all of his principles and is running as the antithesis of the 2000 incarnation of himself, right? I don’t deny that Obama has pandered to some degree, but I think you badly miss the mark. And no, you’re scum for thinking you are so much better informed and more open-minded than I am, when it is clearly not the case. |
McCain"? Link me to my posts where I’ve supported him, plz?
Who said anything about supporting?
If you’re just interested in criticizing politicians for pandering, you apply the rule equally to McCain, right?
After all, you’re not some blind partisan.
|
Who said anything about supporting?
If you’re just interested in criticizing politicians for pandering, you apply the rule equally to McCain, right? After all, you’re not some blind partisan. |
I have no use for McCain, period.
This thread is not about him, though.
|
I have no use for McCain, period.
This thread is not about him, though. |
well we were talking about you and me, since you decided to call me an ignorant sackrider, remember?
I think he was simply stating the facts. It happens.
Wait, did that stupid mother fucker actually say no new nuclear plants?
WTF?
|
Wait, did that stupid mother fucker actually say no new nuclear plants?
WTF? |
tank talking out of his ass?
nevar!
|
tank talking out of his ass?
nevar! |
The Democratic party shooting itself in the foot and opposing the construction of nuclear facilities through the spread of misinformation and outright lies, thus driving communities to construct coal and oil plants?
nevar!
If I recall correctly, he did, because the organization was taken over by neo-liberals who pushed anti-corporate agendas instead of actually trying to make the world a better place.
The organization’s shift to opposing nuclear energy was one of his prime reasons for leaving.
remember everything you’ve ever posted?
go back and delete it to fight the spread.
Opposition to nuclear energy DOES suck Although renewable alternative should be pursued as much as possible
Isn’t it interesting, then, that the states leading wind and solar energy are both red. One of them is Texas, of all places.
Democrats have absolutely no energy plan besides opposing good solutions (like nuclear energy) and proposing terrible ones (like raising taxes on gas), all the while convincing the sheep that they’re the pro-environment party because they’ve got Al Gore straight making shit up and getting laughed at by the scientific community.
Related posts:
- Oil vs. renewable energy analogy Oil is like the road system we have, that may have some potholes and ruts, but with some capital investment,...
- What the fuck is Obama doing? He better defend this shit v. offshore drilling Obama Opens the Door to Offshore Drilling By Jonathan Weisman ORLANDO, Fla. -- Sen. Barack Obama suggested he could...
- Anothing meaningless proclaimation from empty suit Obama. V. Rhetoric not policy. Hey I pointed that website out first Nobody on here is going to read it though. It's far easier to...
- Obama’s Economic plan = income redistribution Obama's 'emergency' economic plan By: August 1, 2008 10:53 AM EST Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an...
- Capitalist Oil Magnate and Conservative Lobbyist confident about the Future of Energy From Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens:"We're paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It's breaking us as a...