Bush expanding energy policy proposals

[todd]

When will this moron realize that finding new ways to utilize fossil fuels is not that panacea he thinks it is? Originally I thought he had finally seen the light and decided that fossil fuels are a giant weight on this economy, not to mention international policy. I was wrong, guess I expected too much.

 

Bush - gots oil on the brain.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

When will this moron realize that finding new ways to utilize fossil fuels is not that panacea he thinks it is? Originally I thought he had finally seen the light and decided that fossil fuels are a giant weight on this economy, not to mention international policy. I was wrong, guess I expected too much.

 

Bush - gots oil on the brain.

320754[/snapback]

 

We need more nuclear power in this country. Now.

[todd]

We need more nuclear power in this country. Now.

320777[/snapback]

 

Agreed. The technology is proven, efficient, inexpensive, and clean. Much better for the environment than those damn coal-burning plants that produce acid rain.

[KRC]

We need more nuclear power in this country. Now.

320777[/snapback]

 

Bush seems to have a passing glance at addressing nukular power in his latest plan, but he still is more focused on conventional technologies.

[John Adams]

We need more nuclear power in this country. Now.

320777[/snapback]

 

We couldn't be further behind on nukular power than we are now. ALL the good technology in nuke power is out of this country. Good article about nucular power in a Wired within the last 2-3 months.

 

Voila- here is said article

[RkFast]

When will this moron realize that finding new ways to utilize fossil fuels is not that panacea he thinks it is? Originally I thought he had finally seen the light and decided that fossil fuels are a giant weight on this economy, not to mention international policy. I was wrong, guess I expected too much.

 

Bush - gots oil on the brain.

320754[/snapback]

 

I really dont see anything here that says Bush has "oil on the brain", except for maybe the fact he is looking to build more refineries, something NOBODY disputes must be done.

 

What I DO see is expansion of tax credits for hybrid, fuel cell and clean-burning diesel vehicles. Further, it took not even three seconds to come up with this:

 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuel...initiative.html

 

Hard to say Bush is "all about the oil" when his overall energy plan has over $1 Billion poured into alternative energy research and even sets a timeline for launch.

 

Even so, fossil fuels are what we use for energy. That wasnt going to change overnight. So tell us....what did you expect?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

We couldn't be further behind on nukular power than we are now. ALL the good technology in nuke power is out of this country. Good article about nucular power in a Wired within the last 2-3 months.

 

Voila- here is said article

320851[/snapback]

 

Funny, isn't it? The very fugging people that rag on and on about global warming are also anti-nuclear, which is the cleanest form of mass electrical generation we have today.

 

I hate the environmental movement. It has done more to stymie progress than it has to help the environment. Just wait till they sink their ignorant little fingers into nanotech....the one technology that promises to truly revolutionize our world.

 

I like this quote:

 

"In 1977, Jimmy Carter, the only nuclear engineer ever to occupy the White House, banned reprocessing in the US in favor of a so-called once-through fuel cycle. Four decades later, more than a dozen countries reprocess or enrich uranium, including North Korea and Iran. At this point, hanging onto spent fuel from US reactors does little good abroad and real mischief at home."

 

Did Jimmuh Carter do ANYTHING right as president? What a buffoon.

 

Further edit: Those Generation IV reactors are already online, from what I've heard. This nation should endeavor to build a MINIMUM of 10-15 of those a year untill ALL of our power is generated via nuclear power.

 

And to hell with the environmentalists, we should be recycling our fuel. The best aid to our environment is technological innovation, not hugging fugging trees.

[Alaska Darin]

Funny, isn't it? The very fugging people that rag on and on about global warming are also anti-nuclear, which is the cleanest form of mass electrical generation we have today.

 

I hate the environmental movement. It has done more to stymie progress than it has to help the environment. Just wait till they sink their ignorant little fingers into nanotech....the one technology that promises to truly revolutionize our world.

320909[/snapback]

Right now in Alaska we're facing another terrible wildfire season because these idiots prefer to let nature "manage" itself and fight every reasonable attempt to remove the fuel. Never mind that it flies in the face of history.

 

Idiots.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Bush seems to have a passing glance at addressing nukular power in his latest plan, but he still is more focused on conventional technologies.

320811[/snapback]

 

With good reason...the anti-nuke lobby is so powerful that they inflate the price of plants by enough (more than 100%) as to make it completely impractical in this country. No one's likely to build another plant anyway until the obsessive government oversight is significantly reduced...and when's the last time government reduced interference in the private sector?

 

The sad thing is...it's fairly easy and inexpensive to build a perfectly safe nuclear reactor (take uranium pellets about 2 cm in diameter, coat with 2mm of graphite, throw into bucket of water. The overall density of uranium in the bucket is enough to sustain a reaction and boil the water, but never gets hot enough to melt the graphite, bring the uranium in contact with itself, and cause a meltdown.) But no one in this country will ever build it while they have to spend $8 billion proving it's safe to people who desperately want to believe otherwise.

[todd]

You've been fooled. Do some research regarding just how hydrogen will be produced. You'll be amazed. (hint - by using gobs of fossil fuels).

 

I at first thought hydrogen was the best solution, but until they come up with a way to isolate hydrogen without using fossil fuels, GW's agenda is clear.

 

I really dont see anything here that says Bush has "oil on the brain", except for maybe the fact he is looking to build more refineries, something NOBODY disputes must be done.

 

What I DO see is expansion of tax credits for hybrid, fuel cell and clean-burning diesel vehicles. Further, it took not even three seconds to come up with this:

 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuel...initiative.html

 

Hard to say Bush is "all about the oil" when his overall energy plan has over $1 Billion poured into alternative energy research and even sets a timeline for launch.

 

Even so, fossil fuels are what we use for energy. That wasnt going to change overnight. So tell us....what did you expect?

320882[/snapback]

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

With good reason...the anti-nuke lobby is so powerful that they inflate the price of plants by enough (more than 100%) as to make it completely impractical in this country.  No one's likely to build another plant anyway until the obsessive government oversight is significantly reduced...and when's the last time government reduced interference in the private sector?

 

The sad thing is...it's fairly easy and inexpensive to build a perfectly safe nuclear reactor (take uranium pellets about 2 cm in diameter, coat with 2mm of graphite, throw into bucket of water.  The overall density of uranium in the bucket is enough to sustain a reaction and boil the water, but never gets hot enough to melt the graphite, bring the uranium in contact with itself, and cause a meltdown.)  But no one in this country will ever build it while they have to spend $8 billion proving it's safe to people who desperately want to believe otherwise.

320941[/snapback]

 

Luddites. That's what environmentalists are. Granola-eating, birkenstock-wearing, non-shaving, tree-hugging LUDDITES. They fear change. They fear advancement.

 

Fortunately, nothing they do will stop the coming of omnipresent technology.

[todd]

Funny, isn't it? The very fugging people that rag on and on about global warming are also anti-nuclear, which is the cleanest form of mass electrical generation we have today.

320909[/snapback]

 

That drives me friggin nuts. Because of the lunatic environmentalists and their anti-nuke stance, we've ended up having to build coal-burning power plants, which are friggin FILTHY! The stupidity of some of these idiots is astounding.

 

The argument will end up being wind power, which is incredibly expensive and ineficcient, not to mention how much land it takes up. Ugh. Crazy stuff.

[Alaska Darin]

That drives me friggin nuts. Because of the lunatic environmentalists and their anti-nuke stance, we've ended up having to build coal-burning power plants, which are friggin FILTHY! The stupidity of some of these idiots is astounding.

 

The argument will end up being wind power, which is incredibly expensive and ineficcient, not to mention how much land it takes up. Ugh. Crazy stuff.

320963[/snapback]

Don't worry, the wackos will scuttle that too. See "Massachussetts." Don't want to ruin our view, you know.

[KRC]

With good reason...the anti-nuke lobby is so powerful that they inflate the price of plants by enough (more than 100%) as to make it completely impractical in this country.  No one's likely to build another plant anyway until the obsessive government oversight is significantly reduced...and when's the last time government reduced interference in the private sector?

 

The sad thing is...it's fairly easy and inexpensive to build a perfectly safe nuclear reactor (take uranium pellets about 2 cm in diameter, coat with 2mm of graphite, throw into bucket of water.  The overall density of uranium in the bucket is enough to sustain a reaction and boil the water, but never gets hot enough to melt the graphite, bring the uranium in contact with itself, and cause a meltdown.)  But no one in this country will ever build it while they have to spend $8 billion proving it's safe to people who desperately want to believe otherwise.

320941[/snapback]

 

 

Whoaaaa...hold on Sparkey. Are you trying to tell me that with reduced government interference, we can reduce the cost of items in the private sector?

 

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Whoaaaa...hold on Sparkey. Are you trying to tell me that with reduced government interference, we can reduce the cost of items in the private sector? 

320973[/snapback]

 

Yeah...but within reason. There are compelling reasons to regulate nuclear power (if only on the premise that nuclear materials are something that should be tracked closely lest they get into the wrong hands...like mine... ) But nuclear power is one of the most horrendusly over-regulated industries in the country...specifically because the anti-nuke lobby, by their own admission, realized they could accomplish their goals through over-regulation much more readily than with any other method. The safety oversight in building a nuke plant alone, you could cut in half with no effect on safety and save a billion or two.

[John Adams]

That drives me friggin nuts. Because of the lunatic environmentalists and their anti-nuke stance, we've ended up having to build coal-burning power plants, which are friggin FILTHY! The stupidity of some of these idiots is astounding.

 

The argument will end up being wind power, which is incredibly expensive and ineficcient, not to mention how much land it takes up. Ugh. Crazy stuff.

320963[/snapback]

 

I like tidal power more than wind power- much more reliable. There's a lot of ocean, and as long as there's a moon, we'll have tides.

 

My dad has a house on the Canadian side of Lake Erie and has wanted to install a windmill for a long time, but you guessed it, the regulatory hurdles (in crunchy Canada for god's sake) are such that it's not worth it. Now, he may jump through all their hoops just because he's a hippy at heart, and wants to rely on wind power, but for the normal guy, it's not worth it.

[Alaska Darin]

I like tidal power more than wind power- much more reliable. There's a lot of ocean, and as long as there's a moon, we'll have tides.

 

My dad has a house on the Canadian side of Lake Erie and has wanted to install a windmill for a long time, but you guessed it, the regulatory hurdles (in crunchy Canada for god's sake) are such that it's not worth it. Now, he may jump through all their hoops just because he's a hippy at heart, and wants to rely on wind power, but for the normal guy, it's not worth it.

321252[/snapback]

TD is currently planning the demise of the moon.

[KRC]

I like tidal power more than wind power- much more reliable. There's a lot of ocean, and as long as there's a moon, we'll have tides.

321252[/snapback]

 

When I was looking for a new job last year, I interviewed with a company who turns the motion of the ocean waves into electricity. Interesting technology and the company is rapidly expanding.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I like tidal power more than wind power- much more reliable. There's a lot of ocean, and as long as there's a moon, we'll have tides.

 

My dad has a house on the Canadian side of Lake Erie and has wanted to install a windmill for a long time, but you guessed it, the regulatory hurdles (in crunchy Canada for god's sake) are such that it's not worth it. Now, he may jump through all their hoops just because he's a hippy at heart, and wants to rely on wind power, but for the normal guy, it's not worth it.

321252[/snapback]

 

Not every place has tides that are really useful for power generation, though. (As it turns out, while the moon causes tides, it's local and regional geography that determines how high and powerful they'll be.) The Bay of Fundy's one place...beyond that, I wouldn't think there's more than a dozen locations world-wide that you can expect to effectively generate electricity from tidal power.

[John Adams]

Not every place has tides that are really useful for power generation, though.  (As it turns out, while the moon causes tides, it's local and regional geography that determines how high and powerful they'll be.)  The Bay of Fundy's one place...beyond that, I wouldn't think there's more than a dozen locations world-wide that you can expect to effectively generate electricity from tidal power.

321269[/snapback]

 

Apologies for being lazy with my words. Tide/wave power is what I meant. And of course, like wind power, it is limited to certain geography.