Hillary compared Obama to Dubya today with these statements: "He said he'd be a uniter, not a divider. He said he'd bring America together," she said of Bush. "He didn't need a lot of experience, he had this great intuition, he understood people, he could go meet with rogue leaders, look in their eyes and their souls, solve our problems. Remember that?"
While I still support Obama but I am giving Edwards a serious look because of Obama's glaring weaknesses in his energy plan (backing nuclear energy, for one), Clinton's portrayal of Obama is so typical.
Hillary has to go negative.
Off to watch them knock heads!
5 comments:
...because of Obama's glaring weaknesses in his energy plan (backing nuclear energy, for one)
I really haven't looked too closely into Obama's energy plan because there is no way I am voting for him, but I have to comment on this.
Nuclear energy is the only viable non-oil based energy source in the foreseeable future. It is safe and clean and is the way forward. Saying you support alternative energies yet oppose nuclear energy is naive at best.
It's being naive to think that nuclear energy is an "alternative." What do we do with the toxic waste? In addition, it takes roughly ten to fifteen years to build the plants, if I recall correctly. The subsidies and money used for nuclear energy could be used for these energy sources: wind, solar, biomass, et al. While nuclear doesn't create much CO2 if at all, you still have to deal with the crud left over compounded by problems like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
After further research, Obama's energy plan is quite extensive and realistic. If he supports nuclear energy, it's probably in a very limited fashion. That's my read right now.
What do we do with the toxic waste?
The newest designs of nuclear plants create practically no waste.
In addition, it takes roughly ten to fifteen years to build the plants, if I recall correctly.
There's not enough new power plants of any kind because "environmentalists" block every attempt to build a new one.
The subsidies and money used for nuclear energy could be used for these energy sources: wind, solar, biomass, et al.
Wind, solar, and biomass will not produce anywhere near enough energy to reduce our dependence on oil. The numbers I have seen online show a potential of less than 5% of projected US needs can be created with those technologies. While every bit is helpful, that is not enough to make a large difference.
While nuclear doesn't create much CO2 if at all, you still have to deal with the crud left over compounded by problems like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
I invite you to look closer into those two disasters. Both plants were designs that are now decades old. Newer designs are as close to foolproof as engineers can make them. Of course accidents can happen, but I'd feel safe living close to a nuclear power plant.
By the way, not a single person was injured as a result of Three Mile Island.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/radeventfaq.html
"To sum up, the TMI accident resulted in significant property damage for the plant operator, but no injuries resulted."
Chernoybl was a result of poor training....
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1986USSR1.html
"On 25 and 26 April 1986 operators were attempting to perform safety tests. On the morning of 26 April they circumvented safety systems to conduct a test at 1:23 AM."
...and poor design.
http://www.energyadvocate.com/fw41.htm
"The 1986 accident at Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster that has befallen the nuclear industry. It was caused by a series of stupidities and compounded by a positive void coefficient (meaning: the tendency, if the reactor was too hot to get hotter yet, a tendency that does not exist in US reactors), the lack of a containment building, and the Soviet refusal to evacuate citizens in danger. "
The overall impact of nuclear plants has been much much safer than coal-fired power plants.
The fear-mongering behind nuclear power plants is holding this country back economically, environmentally, and politically.
Can you pass on any relevant links or articles to verify these newest designs that create little waste? If that's true, I could be persuaded.
You're underestimating solar, wind, and biomass. They won't solve all of our problems, for sure, but with greater R&D put toward closed-loop buildings, solar towers, use of garbage for energy, we can get far beyond 10%.
One of the easiest ways to cut down on CO2 is households, factories, institutions, and businesses simply becoming more energy efficient and builing more "green," LEED-certified buildings. Saves money in the long run too. Less reliance on cars would help a hell of a lot too.
Never mind, travolta--I did some research. I guess what you're talking about are Generation IV (possibly available around 2030) and NGNP reactors (possibly available around 2022). Folks are researching them right now, right? If they do indeed create minimal to no waste, I'm for 'em.
Post a Comment