US Presidential Election 2008 Thread

[Ramo]

We could acceperate the process by deregulating our reactionary post 3MI policies, that decrease in application and constuction time might be enough to drastically reduce prices alone without a cent of public money spent.

How much do you think would really be saved? All we're talking about is time, which might decrease the initial capital costs somewhat. But the alternatives to nuclear are going to be significantly cheaper regardless (despite government subsidizing insurance). Even if decreased regulation magically eliminates initial capital costs (which it obviously won't do), coal would still be almost 10% cheaper.

The simple truth is that there would only be a trivial expansion in nuclear power without cap and trade. It'll be coal, coal, coal...

As an aside, what we really should be doing is ultraregulate and demand companies follow a standard design, as some European countries do.

I, like McCain, favor nuclear expansion, clean coal, and increased drilling.

Offshore drilling would have a negligible impact on the energy market as a whole, and "clean coal" is a fraud perpetrated on the American public.

[Ramo]

Of course there is nothing wrong with spending public money, we do it for the other energy sectors as it is.

How much money are we talking about? Where does the money come from?

[David Floyd]

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Obama's campaign seems to be faltering a bit recently? McCain is polling better and better, and more people seem to be viewing Obama is empty rhetoric in human form.

Maybe there's hope for the idiotic American electorate, after all

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that Obama's campaign seems to be faltering a bit recently? McCain is polling better and better, and more people seem to be viewing Obama is empty rhetoric in human form.

Maybe there's hope for the idiotic American electorate, after all

McCain has gone very negative, very early. And Obama isn't hitting back. Obama appears to be taking a page out of President Dukakis's playbook.

[Patroklos]

Uh.. McCain is also in favor of alternative energy, proposing tax credits for them. As it says on his site:

Did I say those were the only thing McCain supported? The point was that McCain has a multi tiered approach to energy policy (to include long term alternative development) while Obama has his policy base almost soley on unproven alternative fuels and technology, so much so that nuclear power isn't even mentioned on his website. I have no doubt those alternative fuels will mature eventually, but your guess as to when is as good as mine as to when.

Obama does mention clean coal a bit, but he has his star hitched to bio fuels as any glance at his webpage will tell you. ETHONAL, seriously Obama?

We can start building nuke plants NOW. We can start oil extraction infrustucture NOW. Both can be integrated into our current energy infrastucutre as soon as they come online. This should have been done ten years ago, are we going to be that short sighted again?

How much do you think would really be saved?

Why don't you read your own source...

"Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. "

As an aside, what we really should be doing is ultraregulate and demand companies follow a standard design, as some European countries do.

In this capacity, yes we should be regulating. That sort of regulating doesn't increase cost (once the standard reactor design is approved), its the enviromental and local approval regulations that drastically increase timelines that contribute to cost.

As it is there is already an incentive program to bring French type reactors here.

Offshore drilling would have a negligible impact on the energy market as a whole, and "clean coal" is a fraud perpetrated on the American public.

So Ramo's (and Obama's) solution = sit on our hands until some genius develops alternative fuels and implements it, which could be 15 or 30 years from now for all we know.

How much money are we talking about? Where does the money come from?

Isreal's military aid package

[Arrian]

The race is definitely tightening up. Where it goes from here, I won't bother trying to predict.

Maybe there's hope for the idiotic American electorate, after all

Not if they vote Republican again, after the last 8 years. Which they may well do.

...

Regarding "clean coal" ... just based on a quick online search, it sounds like "somewhat cleaner coal" to me, which is certainly preferable to "dirty as all hell coal." And obviously we're going to need coal, just like we'll need oil, for some time yet. I imagine, however, that even "clean coal" will remain pretty dirty.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

Why don't you read your own source...

"Construction delays can add significantly to the cost of a plant. Because a power plant does not yield profits during construction, longer construction times translate directly into higher interest charges on borrowed construction funds. "

You realize there isn't a number in that sentence, right? When I asked "how much" I didn't want to hear some meaningless bull****. And once again, it's capped at the initial capital costs, and would be far less than that, and therefore makes nuclear still substantially more expensive than coal. Meaning that the market wouldn't provide for a massive increase in construction, absent cap and trade.

So Ramo's (and Obama's) solution = sit on our hands until some genius develops alternative fuels and implements it, which could be 15 or 30 years from now for all we know.

No, it's cap and trade with a 100% auction. That forces the market to finance non-carbon alternatives. With revenues from the auction, we invest in mass transit and alternative energy - including nuclear.

My preference would be to supplement cap and trade with a carbon tax (to damp the magnitude of oscillations in the cost of the tax). And I have a pretty clear set of ideas about alternative energy - primarily nuclear and deep geothermal.

Isreal's military aid package

Obviously that's a ridiculous answer and McCain would do no such thing. But my point is that you need lots of money from somewhere. That's hard to do when you extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich and push through more.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Arrian
Not if they vote Republican again, after the last 8 years. Which they may well do.
-Arrian

QFT (unfortunately)

[Ramo]

Regarding "clean coal" ... just based on a quick online search, it sounds like "somewhat cleaner coal" to me, which is certainly preferable to "dirty as all hell coal." And obviously we're going to need coal, just like we'll need oil, for some time yet. I imagine, however, that even "clean coal" will remain pretty dirty.

With the current sequestering tech, the carbon emissions would still be worse than natural gas.

The key is to provide a disincentive on this kind of crap through some kind of tax on carbon (cap and trade and/or carbon tax). Then the market will sort itself out, helped by generous subsidies provided by these tax revenues.

[Patroklos]

You realize there isn't a number in that sentence, right? When I asked "how much" I didn't want to hear some meaningless bull****. And once again, it's capped at the initial capital costs, and would be far less than that, and therefore makes nuclear still substantially more expensive than coal. Meaning that the market wouldn't provide for a massive increase in construction, absent cap and trade.

Again, observed reality contradicts you. They are building plants, so that means at some level they are profitable now, if we elimintate one of the factors contributing to "significant" current costs, that just makes them more affordable.

And it is not as if that is the only thing we can do.

No, it's cap and trade with a 100% auction. That forces the market to finance non-carbon alternatives. With revenues from the auction, we invest in mass transit and alternative energy - including nuclear.

That would be fine if those alternatives already existed, by and large they don't. We don't want alternatives to be viable because we increase the costs of current energy to meltdown levels, we want development to bring the cost of alternatives down. There is no lack of funding in the alternative fuels world, it is the process of development itself that is the delay and it can't be bypassed.

primarily nuclear and deep geothermal.

I would like to start a thread on that when I can dig up a suitable start article.

Obviously that's a ridiculous answer and McCain would do no such thing. But my point is that you need lots of money from somewhere. That's hard to do when you extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich and push through more.

It is even harder to do with UHC, which is going to eat up any Cap and Trade profit made and them some anyway.

[Ramo]

Again, observed reality contradicts you. They are building plants, so that means at some level they are profitable now, if we elimintate one of the factors contributing to "significant" current costs, that just makes them more affordable.

And it is not as if that is the only thing we can do.

It's not more affordable by enough, which is my point.

The market is building a couple. I'm talking about the entire economy. If you're satisfied with a tiny expansion, that's one thing. But anything significant will not happen without cap and trade.

I mean, there's peripheral **** in other parts of the energy sector as well. The first celulose-based ethanol plant went up, for example. That doesn't mean it'll become a viable replacement to coal without cap and trade.

Yes, the government can do other things. Like cap and trade.

There is no lack of funding in the alternative fuels world, it is the process of development itself that is the delay and it can't be bypassed.

Yes, there is. Carbon-generating power is less expensive than the alternatives. That's why alternative energy isn't happening. The entire reason. The costs that I pointed out documents this completely.

[Ramo]

It is even harder to do with UHC, which is going to eat up any Cap and Trade profit made and them some anyway.

That's why you don't extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and pass huge new ones.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
McCain has gone very negative, very early. And Obama isn't hitting back. Obama appears to be taking a page out of President Dukakis's playbook.

Obama's latest ad about McCain and oil is pretty negative.

[Patroklos]

The market is building a couple. I'm talking about the entire economy. If you're satisfied with a tiny expansion, that's one thing. But anything significant will not happen without cap and trade.

If you want the entire economy run off nuclear power then you are definetly backing the wrong "doesn't mention nuclear power in my energy priorities page" candidate.

I don't want the economy to run off nuclear power, it is one method amongst many to achieve our ends.

Yes, there is. Carbon-generating power is less expensive than the alternatives. That's why alternative energy isn't happening. The entire reason. The costs that I pointed out documents this completely.

You are again conflating energy policy and eviromental policy.

I want alternative energies (and most of America) because we are tired of being held prisoner by the cost of oil (or not even that, just because of who supplies it). Our support for them is based on the idea that very soon with continued development they may very well be cheaper than oil naturally. I have no natural favoritism for one of the other, I will buy which ever one is cheaper. However, I don't want you to artificially jack up the price of oil to make alternatives artificially cheaper, especially when the market is going that direction already naturally, so you can achieve your enviromental wet dream. Especially when the tech isn't even adequately developed yet (so even if I wanted to switch I can't).

Any global warming concern is secondary to managable energy prices, not the other way around. Hell, gas is at $4.00 and already people are baying for alternative energy, why jack it to $8.00?

That's why you don't extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and pass huge new ones.

We already went over the numbers for this in the other thread (and Obama wants to extend significant portions of the Bush tax cuts as well) and Obama still comes out the loser. Hell, we didn't even take into account the economic collapse (look at what just $5.00gal did) jacking up energy costs as much as you want to will have on tax revenues.

[Ramo]

If you wan the entire economy run off nuclear power then you are definetly backing the wrong "doesn't mention nuclear power in my energy priorities page" candidate.

I didn't say that. I said that the market should mostly sort it out in a regime where carbon is appropriately taxed.

You are again conflating energy policy and eviromental policy.

They're obviously strongly related. Alternative energy - including nuclear - becomes affordable on a massive scale only in a cap and trade regime.

Any global warming concern is secondary to managable energy prices, not the other way around.

To you. Not to me.

We already went over the numbers for this in the other thread

We did. Remember your shoddy accounting where you included Obama's health care proposal and not McCain's?