Canidates Energy policies

Smull · 06-24-2008, 11:00 PM

This has been in the news a lot recently figured we may as well have a thread on it.

This tends to be one issue where I really prefer McCain. He has been a big proponent of nuclear energy, which I think is a great idea.
McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

Obama on the other hand seems to be pimping ethanol pretty hard which I think is a terrible idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us...0MjFxC4nJflBQw

Thoughts?

Ardentfrost · 06-24-2008, 11:13 PM

I find this thread to be one-sided.

No matter how much you glorify McCain's supposed stance, you can't erase how much money he's accepted from Big Oil and that some of his top advisors are or used to be lobbyists for Big Oil.

McCain promoting Nuclear might mean reducing our dependence on coal and natural gas, but those aren't exactly the problem areas.

thewise1 · 06-25-2008, 12:39 AM

Isn't mccain pimping ethanol really hard too?

DosEquis · 06-25-2008, 01:25 AM

they all want to pimp ethanol...and its foolish. the 20 cents a gallon saved at the pump will be no match for the price increase in basic foods. Meat, cheese, milk, eggs, chicken, turkey, you name it...it will all go up because the price of corn is going to go up with the increased demand as corn is a major source of feed.

motivez · 06-25-2008, 12:28 PM

Unlike most people who'll vote for Obama, I think nuclear is the way to go.. in combination with wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc. Neglecting nuclear doesn't make any sense.

Secure our electrical generation capacity and then work towards moving as much of the country off of fuels and on to the electrical grid as possible seems like a fantastic opportunity to end our dependence on anyone else.

We have all of the necessary technology here in the US to create the plants, it'd add a ton of jobs in various areas (science, high tech, and the low end construction)..

The real question is what to do with the waste. I don't see why we can't build a ship to send it to Jupiter or wherever whenever it starts to pile up too high.

Smull · 06-25-2008, 12:42 PM

I guess it was kind of one sided but I was just trying to start the discussion. Sorry if that came out wrong.

I don't really know McCain's stance on ethanol, I'll be very disappointed if both presidential candidates back one of the stupidest policies in recent memory...

I could be mistaken, but I remember hearing something about the US already having a storage facility for nuclear waste deep underground somewhere out west that was never used or never finished or something.

Stylerod · 06-25-2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Unlike most people who'll vote for Obama, I think nuclear is the way to go.. in combination with wind, solar, geo-thermal, etc. Neglecting nuclear doesn't make any sense.

Secure our electrical generation capacity and then work towards moving as much of the country off of fuels and on to the electrical grid as possible seems like a fantastic opportunity to end our dependence on anyone else.

We have all of the necessary technology here in the US to create the plants, it'd add a ton of jobs in various areas (science, high tech, and the low end construction)..

The real question is what to do with the waste. I don't see why we can't build a ship to send it to Jupiter or wherever whenever it starts to pile up too high.

You are absolutely correct. People keep hyping out about electric cars and bikes but most of the electricity that would be needed to charge those vehicles come from coal or oil burning plants.

Ardentfrost · 06-25-2008, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The real question is what to do with the waste. I don't see why we can't build a ship to send it to Jupiter or wherever whenever it starts to pile up too high.

I guess that would depend on the rate of waste generation, but if it were fairly slow, a million dollar rocket slap full of nuclear waste sent on a crash course with some nearby celestial body sounds awesome and inexpensive (again, if waste generation is slow)

EDIT: Well, I guess then you'd have the formation of PETU... People for the Ethical Treatment of Uranus

thewise1 · 06-26-2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I guess that would depend on the rate of waste generation, but if it were fairly slow, a million dollar rocket slap full of nuclear waste sent on a crash course with some nearby celestial body sounds awesome and inexpensive (again, if waste generation is slow)

EDIT: Well, I guess then you'd have the formation of PETU... People for the Ethical Treatment of Uranus

motivez · 06-26-2008, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You are absolutely correct. People keep hyping out about electric cars and bikes but most of the electricity that would be needed to charge those vehicles come from coal or oil burning plants.

Yeah, and I don't think current generations of wind and solar are going to cut it if we try to shift to pure electric cars

Nuclear is obviously not an ideal solution because of the chance for mass casualty if something goes wrong, but it's the best one we have right now I think.

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, and I don't think current generations of wind and solar are going to cut it if we try to shift to pure electric cars

Nuclear is obviously not an ideal solution because of the chance for mass casualty if something goes wrong, but it's the best one we have right now I think.

The technology now-a-days is so much better than it was 30 years ago. Fail safes for fail safes, none requiring human intervention.

Bridges can fail and cause mass casualty. Airplanes can do the same. Modern nuclear will likely be safer than either.

Scrum · 06-26-2008, 02:06 PM

I will never understand people who oppose nuclear power. The good far outweighs the possible bad at the current level of technology.

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I will never understand people who oppose nuclear power. The good far outweighs the possible bad at the current level of technology.

Duh!

Scrum · 06-26-2008, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Duh!

We should clearly not build skyscrapers or fly on planes either, but the good outweighs the bad.

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 02:56 PM

And we shouldn't drive cars!

Life sucks when people are scared of the unlikely.

Smull · 06-26-2008, 06:02 PM

Nuclear power isn't perfectly safe, but consider this; during Chernobyl about 50 people were killed instantly and another 4,000 were killed due to radiation and cancer and such, this is in the Soviet Union, a country with very low safety standards. In the U.S. nobody has died in a nuclear accident that I'm aware of, yet last year we lost 33 people in our coal mines. For comparison China lost almost 4,000 people in its coal mines just last year (and that was a good year for them).

So no, nuclear power isn't perfectly safe, but neither are our alternatives.

thewise1 · 06-26-2008, 07:57 PM

Nothing is perfectly safe, people need to man up and stop being pussies about everything.

DosEquis · 06-30-2008, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The real question is what to do with the waste. I don't see why we can't build a ship to send it to Jupiter or wherever whenever it starts to pile up too high.

The risk there is making sure the rocket doesn't blow up while the stuff is on board. A dirty bomb over florida would not be ideal.

Ardentfrost · 06-30-2008, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The risk there is making sure the rocket doesn't blow up while the stuff is on board. A dirty bomb over florida would not be ideal.

.... or would it....

DosEquis · 06-30-2008, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

.... or would it....

The MLB would lose all its cuban baseball players.