Energy policy, comparing the candidates

Energy policy, comparing the candidates (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vendaval -> Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/14/2008 7:30:28 PM)
The Wall Street Journal Online has an informative article on the differences in energy policy between the two candidates. "In Energy Policy, McCain, Obama Differ on Role of Government" By STEPHEN POWER June 9, 2008; Page A2 "Sen. McCain's and Sen. Obama's goals may sound similar, but the candidates would pursue drastically different paths to achieve them. Those differences are coming into sharper focus, with the end of the contentious Democratic nomination battle and the surge in oil prices, which on Friday shot up nearly $11 a barrel. Sen. Obama is pushing a bigger government role in fostering the development of technologies to reduce emissions and alternatives to fossil fuels. Sen. McCain, meanwhile, argues for a more hands-off approach, saying "unintended consequences" can result from wrongheaded interference in the marketplace." http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121296676181055711-lMyQjAxMDI4MTAyODkwNjg2Wj.html

bipolarber -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/14/2008 7:47:55 PM)
Pushing coal plants and 47 new nuke plants, and offshore rigs dotting the coasts like a string of anal beads is a "hands off" policy? And before any of the "Greedy Ol' Parties" spin-posters show up, I just want to point out one little thing: the internet they are using to post their bile was created via a government program very much like the one Obama is proposing. As were any number of other technologies. Some were for military applications, others not.

Archer -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/14/2008 11:02:19 PM)
Obama (from his own site) Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology. McCain (From his own site) John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. So the coal angle is a non identifiable difference other than McCain cites a specific amount. Nuclear plants (considering the availability of technology it is the fastest way to electric power without carbon emmisions) Obama "Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency. (By many accounts this means you have to go with nuclear energy.) McCain "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power." Least amount of backup to Obama's possition. Obama " Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas." (nice and non commital as to what this means) McCain The current federal moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf stands in the way of energy exploration and production. John McCain believes it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.We should keep more of our dollars here in the U.S., lessen our foreign dependency, increase our domestic supplies, and reduce our trade deficit - 41% of which is due to oil imports. John McCain proposes to cooperate with the states and the Department of Defense in the decisions to develop these resources. Seems McCain has the most actual substance in his Energy policy rather than platitudes offered by Obama. hands off means removing obsticles to private enterprize developing this technology. You know private companies like Google/ yahoo/ the private companies that took a slightly usefull government product of the internet and made it actually usefull to Billions of people.

philosophy -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/14/2008 11:39:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer McCain "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power." (my italics) ......zero emission? So, either McCain is conveniently suggesting that nuclear waste is not, per se, an emission.......which is selective logic at best........or he forgot about nuclear waste. Which is just not all that bright. However, nuclear plants do make an awful amount of money for those who build them.......wonder how many of them have contributed to McCains campaign, if any.......

Sanity -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 4:18:45 AM)
I guess that's the danger of being specific, you open yourself up to specific criticism... all kinds of mud slinging. Obama's nice and mealy-mouthed about all this, almost impossible to criticize. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy (my italics) ......zero emission? So, either McCain is conveniently suggesting that nuclear waste is not, per se, an emission.......which is selective logic at best........or he forgot about nuclear waste. Which is just not all that bright. However, nuclear plants do make an awful amount of money for those who build them.......wonder how many of them have contributed to McCains campaign, if any.......

Sanity -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 4:29:29 AM)
Oh, and he's talking about carbon emissions - the context being global warming. Maybe you've heard of it...

pahunkboy -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 6:17:31 AM)
you have to figure on some of these issues that the candidate has not been briefed by intelliegence and classified....

Vendaval -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 6:19:35 AM)
I think nuclear power needs to be discussed. But first how to handle the major problem of the waste must be addressed. "Spent Nuclear Fuel" "Fuel that has been withdrawn from a nuclear reactor following irradiation, the constituent elements of which have not been separated by reprocessing. SNF may include: (1) intact, non-defective fuel assemblies or fuel rods; (2) failed fuel assemblies or fuel rods; (3) segments of fuel rods or pieces of fuel derived from spent fuel rods; and (4) various nonfuel components and structural parts of irradiated fuel assemblies." http://www.em.doe.gov/Pages/wmdi.aspx On a bit of a background note, we have Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in this county located near Avila Beach. Pacific Gas and Electric operates the plant. http://www.dcisc.org/index.html (format edit)

philosophy -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 9:07:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Oh, and he's talking about carbon emissions - the context being global warming. Maybe you've heard of it... ...oh i have heard of it somewhere, rings a faint bell anyway. The point i was trying to make was that any sane discussion of nuclear energy has to include a thought through plan of what to do with the inevitable by-product....nuclear waste. To bring the issue up and ignore the fact of nuclear waste is, as i said earlier, selective logic. To put out a sound bite that implies it is a clean form of energy is also selective logic.

Sanity -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 9:35:56 AM)
So, you're upset at Archer for not quoting more of McCain's website... Or is it McCain you're upset with, for not publishing every microscopic detail known concerning nuclear power. Either way, you're the one who seems to be using selective logic, because McCain apparently goes into far more detail than the Obamessiah does. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ...oh i have heard of it somewhere, rings a faint bell anyway. The point i was trying to make was that any sane discussion of nuclear energy has to include a thought through plan of what to do with the inevitable by-product....nuclear waste. To bring the issue up and ignore the fact of nuclear waste is, as i said earlier, selective logic. To put out a sound bite that implies it is a clean form of energy is also selective logic.

Owner59 -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 10:08:14 AM)
New off shore drilling, will lower the price of gas 20-30 cents,in about 9 to 11 years from now,maybe.We`ll see in ten years..... That is not a viable solution and does nothing about 4 dollars a gallon gas. I like the energy tax break and releasing some of our reserve. I like the long term plan of renewable clean(er) environment friendly(ier) options like solar,wind,geo-thermal,conservation and up-grading,scrubbers on coal stacks. I don`t like the Bush plan,err ,the McCain plan. Fuck`n fifty more nuke plants,lol.Jesus help us....

philosophy -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 10:44:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity So, you're upset at Archer for not quoting more of McCain's website... ...why would i be upset? all i've done is answer Archer's post. quote: Or is it McCain you're upset with, for not publishing every microscopic detail known concerning nuclear power. ....again, i'm not upset. Mind you, if you seriously consider nuclear waste to be a 'microscopic' detail then you may well need to change your nickname. quote: Either way, you're the one who seems to be using selective logic, because McCain apparently goes into far more detail than the Obamessiah does. ...once again, in your rush to partisan logic you miss the point. i have no dog in this hunt, i'll not be voting in the US presidential election. It will effect me though, as US foreign policy effects pretty much everyone in the world. Basically, if i see humbug, on either side of the ideological fence, i'll call it. When it comes to nuclear power there are two completely unavoidable issues: firstly will the plant do a Chernobyl? Secondly what will you do with the waste? To discuss nuclear power without addressing those two issues is one of two things.....it's either an attempt to play down these serious concerns or it's ignorance. Neither reflect well on McCain.

Sanity -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 11:05:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ....again, i'm not upset. Mind you, if you seriously consider nuclear waste to be a 'microscopic' detail then you may well need to change your nickname. Yeah, when I see you dancing with TOS violations like that I'd have to say you're feeling upset. quote: ...once again, in your rush to partisan logic you miss the point. i have no dog in this hunt, i'll not be voting in the US presidential election. It will effect me though, as US foreign policy effects pretty much everyone in the world. Basically, if i see humbug, on either side of the ideological fence, i'll call it. That's disingenuous on your part. I have yet to see you criticize Obama. I doubt you ever will, either. quote: When it comes to nuclear power there are two completely unavoidable issues: firstly will the plant do a Chernobyl? Secondly what will you do with the waste? To discuss nuclear power without addressing those two issues is one of two things.....it's either an attempt to play down these serious concerns or it's ignorance. Neither reflect well on McCain. New rule, eh. McCain can't talk about nuclear power unless he meets all of your demands... Funny. [sm=rofl.gif]

philosophy -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 11:13:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity [ Yeah, when I see you dancing with TOS violations like that I'd have to say you're feeling upset. http://www.collarme.com/tos.asp ...want to point out what TOS violation i'm dancing around? Or are you just trying to bully me?

thishereboi -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 12:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 New off shore drilling, will lower the price of gas 20-30 cents,in about 9 to 11 years from now,maybe.We`ll see in ten years..... Didn't the Dem's say the same thing about 10 or 12 years ago? It's a shame they didn't do anything then.

Sanity -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 12:20:02 PM)
You had ought to be able to figure that one out on your own easily enough.

philosophy -> RE: Energy policy, comparing the candidates (8/15/2008 12:26:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity You had ought to be able to figure that one out on your own easily enough. ...in other words you can't find a TOS that i've been dancing around. You accused me of dancing around some TOS. So the burden of proof is on you. i don't think i've done any such thing, so from my pov what you want me to do is prove a negative. How about you step up to the plate that you have placed and back up your words.......or was i right, and all you were trying to do was bully me?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125