Michael Welch wrote on Aug 8, 2008 12:49 PM:
" I endorse ALL the 'alternatives' beyond more (off shore) drilling, which I think simply prolongs the problem and provides the ready illusion that we can once again 'put it off,' but I understand that fully EIGHTY PER CENT of France's energy needs are provided by nuclear energy and if the French can 'do it' I'm flummoxed as to why we cannot. The French MUST store waste somewhere under certain conditions and if they're safer than we, then we ought to make inquiries -- Sarkozy appears an amiable fellow and might be able to help eh... "
random annoying bozo wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:18 PM:
" MW, thank you for commenting on nuclear. that was the whole premise with my original post, here we have an 'editorial' espousing how we need a 'comprehensive' energy plan, and no where in it is there even one mention of nuclear. like i said, to some 'comprehensive' only should inclde what some people like. even in the planning stages. seems like a lesson in how to insure failure to me. "
Michael Welch wrote on Aug 7, 2008 2:26 PM:
" Why do 'anything'? Because in 'ten years' oil resources will STILL be relatively scarce and prices could well be HIGHER than today (even accounting for inflation) and we'd be in the VERY SAME MESS -- yet dependent on an essentially declining resource. But if we concentrate on solar, wind et. al., we are developing sources that will NOT be in decline at all; PLUS I think we could indeed use nuclear which is really MUCH 'cleaner' and even safer than carbon based fuels re: pollution and global warming. If however we decide off shore drilling is our 'ace' we stay in the same 'game' and end up in the same 'hole' -- and those TEN YEARS may go for naught... "
random annoying bozo wrote on Aug 7, 2008 1:53 PM:
" MW, nothing we could do on any front will kick in until '10 years?', i don't know why '10 years' always comes up, but just for the sake of keeping it simple that's the number i'll use. so if anything we do will not help until '10 years?' hence, why do anything? let's forget solar, hydro, wind, everything. after all it will be '10 years?' til it matters. and to truly have a 'comprehensive' plan as the 'editorial' espouses, how do you do that with out leaving 'everything' on the table? it's hard to be 'comprhensive' when you pick and choose what's applicable. "
Michael Welch wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:43 PM:
" I agree with the Trib's argument completely; Carter was often politically hapless but that doesn't mean he was 'wrong'; Reagan was, or his advisors were, politically astute but THAT doesn't mean they were long term thinkers -- at least not per energy policy. I happen to think that nuclear energy IS a 'good idea' as France does quite well and hasn't been Chernobyl'ed lately. Now Three Mile Island scared the livin' s--- outta 'US' but it resulted in NO catastrophe. Off shore drilling is a short term pseudo-'solution' (prices could be HIGHER EVEN WITH the drilling) that doesn't 'kick in' FOR TEN YEARS anyway and delays the inevitable -- alternatives, among which I would yes include nuclear. (Sorry neighbor Nevada!...) "
random annoying bozo wrote on Aug 7, 2008 10:53 AM:
" and by the way blogger, i'm an Independant with Libertarian leanings. just clarifying that as seeing you seem need to label things and people. "
random annoying bozo wrote on Aug 7, 2008 10:50 AM:
" yes blogger, government does get in the way. they are too busy placating the far left envro-mental nut jobs. too many people seem to think government has all the answers and government itself thinks it is the only entity that knows how to do anything. if you don't think government is a hinderance. try building a dam for hydro. windmills? we saw what happened to that proposal in Trempealeau county. solar? not yet feasible. ethanol, the savior government said would be the answer? well that sure seemed to be a cluster coitus. someone just tell me ONE thing government has done right in the last 50 years concerning energy. and as far as storing nuclear waste, it already is in our 'backyard', ever hear of Genoa. Oz? how long has it been there and what is the problem? "
oz wrote on Aug 7, 2008 9:03 AM:
" Hey bozo, are you willing to have nuclear waste stored in your back yard?If nuclear is as safe as you say it is, then how come they can't get insurance? "
blogger wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:35 AM:
" We have all the alternatives we need but the government stands in the way? Sounds like the Grover Norquist / conservative answer to everything, a mindset that this administration (not to mention that of the Reagan Administration) has supported. So why do we find ourselves in the current state of affairs? "
random annoying bozo wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:39 AM:
" have you ever noticed when someone does one of these 'editorials' or you hear some 'politician' talk about 'alternative energy' one thing is always missing? no one ever says a peep about nuclear, why is that? it's the safest and least polluting energy source we have, plus it's one of the cheapest energy sources too. and as far as 'developing' alternatives? we already have all the alternatives we need. all government has to do is cut the red tape, and bull crap, and let the private sector develop. when government gets out of the way and doesn't try to 'help', thing work much smoother. "
Rickey wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:00 AM:
" We are Enjoying the affects of Reaganomics , Let the oil companies solve the energy crisis. Spend $600 Billion on Iraq but Little federal money on alternative energy sources "