Obama thinks that nuclear waste is a problem? I'd like for him to talk to my Grandpa, the nuclear physicist.
Obama prefers solar and wind. That's fine. Unfortunately, you'd have to put solar panels over the whole state of New Mexico to light up Las Vegas. I've seen the amount of windmills needed to supply parts of California....I'm not terribly impressed. I still prefer wind and solar to coal burning though.
Do we need any more proof of the effectiveness of nuclear power than taking a good glimpse at Europe? They even lack the fortune of having the Yucca mountains.
6 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Apparently there isn't much of an alternative energy plan other than sticking the American people with a n energy tax for basic consumption and wasting that money on weird ideas such as hair gel generators. ( A bit elaborate, I admit.) There hasn't been one solid, strategically though out energy plan from the democrats for the last decade. Obama didn't even say a word about drilling, Rocky Mountain shale, or clean coal. In my mind, that is extremely short-sighted.
I want to get off oil, so don't get me wrong......we have this addiction. I just don't think quitting cold turkey is the answer.
First things first......become energy independant, ya know?
And if Obama really cares about the environment, he should be doing everything he can to ensure that 70% of our electricity isn't coming from coal burning. Uhhh....that's why nuclear power plants ARE the best option right now.
Surprise, surprise, the issues you so brilliantly solved in 5 paragraphs are slightly more complicated than you think. How dare that short-sighted Obama not mention every possible source of energy that might be exploited for the benefit of the western states. He obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.
Oil shale could bring the cost of gas down. In a decade. That's just as effective as drilling. Where will that leave us? Where are, right now. You were so excited when Mitt talked about making a profit on new sources of energy, but when Barack says it, you call baloney. Same message, different messenger. He's saying the right things, you're just not listening.
We don't have great disposal methods for nuclear waste. The idea that, 'well, nobody died yet, so that's cool,' doesn't fly so well when you have something with a half-life of several thousand years. Just ask the deer that now populate Chernobyl. Yucca is the best idea we have but, no surprise, the entire state of Nevada isn't so keen on being the nation's outhouse. But, hey, if you are the ones that think the Federal government should have a greater say that states, then you need to brush up on your conservative boilerplate. And, James, when did you start looking to France for answers?
I think we all agree. Fossil fuels stink and are killing the planet. So why is the best answer you have come up with "Drill, baby, drill?"
JFK got us to the moon, many people doubted we could get there. Barack is issuing the same kind of challenge. Have enough faith in humanity and American ingenuity that we can actually come up with something better.
If Mitt was saying it you would be preaching it.
Yeah, it's a sad day when we look to France for answers.
Dude.....let the states decide how to dispose of their nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is such a buzz word anyways. Have you been to a nuclear power plant...I have. I even went through some simulation training. Have you had physics and chemistry? I have. You were all for nuclear power yesterday....what happened?
What are you going to say when we're still using Middle-eastern oil. In a decade.
Why wait for something better....do something now and strive for improvement. Rockets were invented before JFK took office.
No, don't apologize. I deserved it and it was funny. I think we all need to laugh at ourselves a little more often. Sorry if I ticked you off, dude. Sometimes I let sarcasm have it's way with me. It's funny how we all become experts about every election cycle, me included.
The energy crisis could become one of the great challenges of our time and there no easy answers. If nuclear power were so perfect it would have been done already. We can sit and pontificate all we want but we all have to admit that it is one big mess that requires that will take years to sort out. And probably not then, even. There are legitimate concerns. That isn't to say there isn't great potential, I would rather have it than just drilling more holes, for sure. But we are smarter than doing the same thing we have done since the tin lizzy.
Sure they had rockets when JFK issued his challenge. We have solar, wind, hydrogen, biofuels and others. With a concerted effort we can fix this. There are many choices in energy that could have greater energy efficiency without the toxic leftovers. One of the reasons that we are so weary of fossil fuels is because of the gunk it leaves behind. We should use nuclear energy, but do so wisely. In the long run, though, we need to find ways of harvesting energy that don't fill up our mountainsides with stuff that will still be poisonous in 20,000 years.
If I had to choose between drilling and more nuclear-powered plants I wouldn't even blink.