Thanks for your insight-- you seem to know a lot more about the issue than I do. Here's the thing-- I think a great majority of what's done in Washington is disengenuous. I think Obama is better than most in this regard, but still far from perfect. But I still don't think it fair to apply a blanket "no drill, no nukes" label on the guy just because he's a Democrat.IntLibber wrote: I'm experienced in politics as an activist and election official (and not a republican), so I know how this works (I've also worked as an energy analyst, so I know the energy industry pretty well). Claims that the "problem of nuclear waste" needs to be solved are disengenuous when the "problem" has been solved for decades but anti-nukers have stymied every attempt at the solutions:
And Obama does oppose the Yucca mountain site. I disagree with him on that. But at the same time he's not asking to take the money away from the problem as a whole, but redirect it to explore other solutions (though he's admitedly short on specifics). Perhaps he is just trying to feign support while ensuring a real solution is never found, but I think its extremely premature to convict him of that charge. I think a healthy dose of skeptism is warranted at this point, nothing more.a) theyve tried obstructing the Yucca Mountain storage site, the place is fine, secure, geologically stable.
b) the solution other nuclear nations use, in order to reduce their waste tonnage by 90%+ is using breeder reactors to reprocess expended fuel rods to regenerate their isotopes. it works fine, the left doesnt want us to implement it cause it would force the anti-nukers to get real jobs.
The widely quoted value is 20% cap for wind power. Even the DOE uses that figure. I'd be willing to read arguments to the contrary, but I think "a few percent" is really low-balling it.a) wind: usable capacity is typically only a few percent of installed capacity due to the unreliability of winds to supply when needed. tree huggers locally oppose what they espouse nationally (see the Kennedy opposition to the windfarm proposals for offshore of cape cod and nantucket) with NIMBY attitudes.
Also, if fuel cells or other markets for hydrogen develop, hydrogen production could be good way to utilize wind power during times of high generation and lessen the fluctuation of avaliable power on the grid.
I think its disgusting Kennedy opposed the cade cod farm.
I don't think hydro is a good option.b) hydro: the US is built out for hydro, and the tree huggers have been getting existing dams destroyed to restore
habitat, they want even the biggest dams gone like the grand coulee and the hoover.
Cost-wise, I think thin-film solar is changing the game. Do you have good reason to think otherwise? Waste-wise, I know thin-film does still have problems. But I'm sure there are ways to minimize it and think it should be worth the trade-off here.c) solar power: generates LOTS of toxic waste manufacturing solar cells, low ROI
As things are currently, I completely agree. Though I do think cellulosic tech (assuming it pans out) changes the game. Maybe we have to spread nitrates across the high-plains to keep switchgrass growing in the long term, but I think its worth it. Combined with wind and solar, I think its very realistic that we can take a huge dent out of our energy needs.d) biofuel: actually causes MORE harm to the environment than drilling for oil, a LOT more. increases soil erosion, nitrate pollution in rivers, deforestation, increases food prices resulting in rising poverty rates globally.