Meet Barack Hussein Mugabe

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually that was Ford. It was just confirmed by Carter the next year. But it only last for 4 years until Reagan lifted the ban in '81.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
What more will we really have to show for it?

To start with...
(a) Solar energy that costs 1/3 as much as coal energy. LINK
(b) the new MIT break through on catalysts to turn electricity into cheap hydrogen and oxygen.
(c) there's a helix-bladed wind generator that works in windy cities like Chicago.
(d) geothermal generators that were abandoned edecades ago due to falling energy prices have been refurbished and are now generating economical, clean energy.
(e) we have those new lightbulbs that burn only a fraction of the energy the old ones did.
(f) hybrids are spreading. The Volt electric car is due to come out soon. There's a compressed-air car that has been invented in the U.S. and will soon be distributed by Tata Motors in India:

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

That's an operative word; Obama's offered nothing on the most clean and economically efficient energy that doesn't produce waste -- nuclear power.

Our inability to deal with the waste from nuclear plants is one of the main objections to nuclear power!

(BTW: About two years ago, I dropped my objections to nuclear power when I concluded that the problems of nuclear waste are miniscule when compared to the problems of climate change.)

[Patroklos]

Obama has stated he is against nuclear power. That is his problem, he potificates about the evils of oil but doesn't advocate any proven source of power as an alternative.

Sure, work on hydrogen cars and solar plants, but these are not real alternatives as of yet. In the meantime, you have to run the country on something and it isn't going to be hope.

Nukes

Oil in the meantime

Hydrogen/Solar/Wind as long term goals

Our inability to deal with the waste from nuclear plants is one of the main objections to nuclear power!

Obama's objections on this line are stupid, as you yourself said. Yucca Mountain is more than capable of storing decades worth of nuclear waste securely. Hell, there are thousands of square miles of wastland in the West and all we need is one to store all our waste from centuries of use.

[Zkribbler]

Happy Birthday, Obama!! (<-- alcohol power!)

[Ramo]

Yeah, the big is the unwillingness to drill anywhere and not looking hard enough at nukes.

Obama is pro-nuclear, but adds caveats that we need sensible ideas about storage. Yucca Mtn. is a ridiculous idea, a disaster waiting to happen; we need local storage.

Expanded drilling might increase supply a tiny fraction of a percent a couple decades from now, and assuming that the almost inevitable tax doesn't price a lot of that out of economic viability.

The alpha and omega of a real energy policy is cap and trade with a 100% auction or carbon tax. That's where market incentives to move away from carbon and government revenues to subsidize a new energy regime would come from. I don't have any confidence about McCain on this matter. He flip-flopped on a weak proposal with inadequate targets, without a full auction (Lieberman-Warner) in pursuit of the Republican nomination.

[Jon Miller]

We actually pulled funding from the fusion prototype power plant being built in europe. There is problems of funding, and we would do well to inrease it. Things take time though, I agree.

One issue is that 7 trillion over the course of 20 yaers isn't that much when you look at the big picture, and how much we spend on other stuff (and how much things cost now).

JM

[Patroklos]

Obama is pro-nuclear, but adds caveats that we need sensible ideas about storage.

Then perhaps he should have mentioned that in his official energy policy on his website, because nuclear isn't mentioned once.

Be does mention his love of domestic ethonal

And though apparently drilling won't do any good, did he not call for the opening of the strategic oil reserve for the purpose of increasing supply by a vastly smaller amount than drilling would do? Make up your mind please.

[Patroklos]

Ah, burried safely in the non site PDF...

Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon
generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear
without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and
waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S.
Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear
power plants.

The closest thing to a solution to our problem doesn't even warrant mention on the actual web page

[Ramo]

Google's your friend...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants.

To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama
worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and
stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make
safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority.

Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

And though apparently drilling won't do any good, did he not call for the opening of the strategic oil reserve for the purpose of increasing supply by a vastly smaller amount than drilling would do? Make up your mind please.

It's a short term measure to slow down steep increase in gas prices. I'm not a particular fan of this proposal, but at least he's not conning the public like McCain's drill everywhere shtick...

[Patroklos]

Google's your friend...

And apparently I am a good bit faster at using it than you. Though again I note our only real solution to our problem doesn't even make it to Obama's actual webpage. I wonder why that is?

It's a short term measure to slow down steep increase in gas prices. I'm not a particular fan of this proposal, but at least he's not conning the public like McCain's drill everywhere shtick...

So you admit Obama is inconsistant. That is a start.

You realize Obama wishes to force the oil companies to drill their currently unprofitable leases right? Why would he do that if drilling is useless (besides the fact that he likes higher oil prices)?

[Ramo]

Be does mention his love of domestic ethonal

One of the few issues where McCain's genuinely better. But that's partially due to the fact that Obama represents a farm state.

[Ramo]

So you admit Obama is inconsistant. That is a start.

Of course he's inconsistent. He's a major politician.

The strategic oil reserve release, the gas tax holiday, the excess profit tax, drill everywhere: it's all bull****. But, as I've been saying, the McCain proposals are obscene compared to Obama's.

You realize Obama wishes to force the oil companies to drill their currently unprofitable leases right? Why would he do that if drilling is useless?

To make the point that the "drill everywhere (edit: changed from now)" movement is about oil companies getting leases before oil gets much more expensive (when drilling would become more profitable). It's a massive giveaway.

Though again I not our only real solution to our problem doesn't even make it to Obama's actual webpage. I wonder why that is?

He doesn't want to emphasize it in his summary page because he doesn't think there's a lot of political mileage there. Duh.

But he's careful to signal his approval of nuclear. During the debates when Hillary and Edwards took anti-nuclear stances, Obama stood up for it, for example.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You realize Obama wishes to force the oil companies to drill their currently unprofitable leases right? Why would he do that if drilling is useless (besides the fact that he likes higher oil prices)?

Why would oil companies spend money leasing land where it's unprofitable to drill?

[Ramo]

The future.