Obama said that we "have to have an energy policy to deal with not just Russia" but with other not-so-friendly regimes. He also said the United States should increase "domestic production, and yes, offshore drilling ... but we only have 3 percent of the world's oil .. we can't drill our way out of the problem."
Obama said that our plan should include "wind, solar, yes, nuclear, clean-coal" and hit on McCain for voting against renewables numerous times over his 26 years in office. He also noted that these energy sources "deal with the issue of climate change which is so important."
McCain argued that Obama can't say he's for nuclear, because he's "against reprocessing and storing" waste. Obama says that's not true: "I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I've said is I have concerns about safe storage."
McCain also argued that one of the solutions to energy concerns should be more drilling: "Offshore drilling is also something that's very important, but it's a bridge ... it will help temporarily help relieve our energy problems." But economists, the Energy Information Administration, and the American Petroleum Institute all say that any effects are at least 10 years out. That's one long bridge.
“Historic consensus” at G8 on climate change, says Obama
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 2:03 am
27 Sep 2008
He was about to say..
"What I've said I have concerns about safe storage."
...That McCain opposes waste storage in his home state of Arizona. Put it in someone eleses' back yard John?
Or should we spur the nuclear industry to recycle and neutralize the waste? Safely, in place in sealed reactor vessels. Without dangerous, astronomically expensive transport and handling and 10,000 year storage facilities.
Once they put the radioactive fuel in the heating element it should be designed to use the fuel completely and leave the sealed unit safe to rest in place.
It has to be sealed to keep anyone from getting any of the fuel out at anytime during it's radioactive lifetime. It's the only feasible way to protexct from proliferation, terrorism, accidents, and so forth.
A sealed vessel that heats an energy transport fluid like water, without rendering it radioactive. Designed in safety from ever reaching critical mass or leaking because of pressure or heat.
Can it be done? And done economically? If not, the only nuclear power that is safe and effective for power generation is on the Sun. Used at a safe distance with solar, wind, wave, ocean current, biogas, and river flow power generation.
Ocean current power and tidal current power are different, these are powered by planetary motion. As are prevailing wind patterns, that in turn power ocean currents.
The steady power of the Gulf stream is powered by Earth rotation. Good backup power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:18 am
27 Sep 2008
"...one long bridge"
(to nowhere) Kate! Hehey. Hmmm, there's a bumpersticker there somewhere.
(We could split the profits?)
It will only lower gas prices three cents per gallon. I realized looking at a power tool catalogue, that spare batteries are being sold at around 2 dollars per watt of storage.
That puts your average daily one way commute at around 3000 dollars of batteries, at retail prices. I'm thinking that mass production would reduce that retail price to around one dollar per watt hour.
These kind of hi-tech lithium batteries charge in an hour or so. You can plugin at work, shopping, school. Even a 15 mile range plugin hybrid with 1500 dollars worth of batteries could cover the average trip.
There is no excuse not to build this bridge to renewable electric transportation. We need to build about 1000 more factories making these batteries. I bet lots of americans would welcome a job building and operating these factories.
"Calin/McPain..building/drill, drill, drilling one long bridge...to nowhere!"
Yep, good bumpersticker.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:48 am
27 Sep 2008
McCain and waste...
McCain is in favor of storing nuclear waste in Nevada.
But he is opposed to transporting it through Arizona to get it there.
---
Interviewer: What about the transportation? Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to uh Yucca Mountain? McCain (Shaking Head): "No, I would not. No, I would not."
http://www.buckeyestateblog.com/mccain_wants_to_send_nucl ...
--
Permalink
Susan Kraemer Posted 6:57 am
27 Sep 2008
Someone has to get the truth out about McCain
I am so glad to hear Obama called McCain on his voting record against renewables - I missed some of the debate, and it seemed much too soft-hitting...
For a man who voted 42 out of 44 times with Inhofe, he would have to be a complete sociopath to believe that he could make the media think he's a green candidate.
Yet he does.
By contrast, Obama's votes were all with Barbara Boxer's. Even though I don't like some of his dirty language (clean coal, nuclear) the votes are the bottom line.
Permalink