Comments on: We Need Him: Our Endorsement of Barack Obama

By: B4JRE

B4JRE — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:31:32 +0000

Re: Obama’s Love of Nukes
Besides the inherent danger of nuclear power, “experts estimate that we would need to triple our number of nuclear reactors to make a serious dent in global warming. With just over a hundred reactors currently online in the U.S.A., and at a cost of around $5 billion per reactor, that would require at least $1 trillion (assuming we didn’t replace aging plants). Given that cost, and the fact that it takes up to ten years to build a new plant, it would take decades to start meeting the threats of planetary climate change with nuclear power. And that’s not even taking into consideration the risk taken by the public with triple the threat of nuclear disaster.” (from Friends of The Earth) Not that I make them my gospel but I figure, why plagiarize? Also see “Nuclear Facts”, http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf Plus there is the problem of them as targets for terrorists.

Rather than go down that unnecessary road, I’d love for us to start with appropriately aggressive energy efficiency and conservation which would drastically reduce our carbon footprint and have the added benefit of being economically prudent(there’s a ton of cost analysis on this but I’m too lazy to google it. I’m on dial-up. sorry). Additionally, if we replace the zeal for nukes into R and D for green and safe technologies, I trust that human ingenuity, given the chance, will prevail.

By: DanTheMan

DanTheMan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:30:20 +0000

Or can’t we work with Ballard to use their technologies and take them to the next level? Here is a private industry that has brought the best solution to-date to fruition. They deserve to profit for their creativity and hard work, and there is no reason Americans can’t help advance it.

Ballard has American plants and American investors (I’m one). The fact they are Canadien is irrelevent.

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:55:21 +0000

I mean aren’t we capable of the same level of invention and innovation as a Canadian company?

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 03:07:28 +0000

what do you mean “matching them”?

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:41:29 +0000

All we need is a containment vessel capable of withstanding intense radioactivity for 16 million years. Piece o’ cake. Coal, oil, are not viable long term sources of energy. Hydrogen is the most abundent element in the universe. Ballard Power is a leader in fuel cell technology and are, at this moment, marketing their product worldwide. Aren’t we capable of matching them?

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:15:42 +0000

“Answer the problem of waste and let’s start building.”

The coal, oil, and gas industry sure didn’t have to answer the problem of waste for their product — send it into the sky and cause the environmental problems that your party is rallying behind.

Let’s not forget that the current energy “solution” creates at least as much waste which is at least as harmful as would a nationwide nuclear energy system.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:58:31 +0000

Nuclear energy is great except we don’t know what to do with the something like 38 tons of waste each reactor produces yearly. Much of this waste is being store at the plant site as it can’t be moved safely and there’s no place to store it safely. Answer the problem of waste and let’s start building. Meanwhile, smaller lower tech, hydrogen fuel cell generators, like those built by Ballard power are being used in China, India, Japan and Korea. These units are about the size of your average refridgerator and emit zero green house gases. They will provide all the electricity (950 watts) a home needs every month.

By: DantheMan

DantheMan — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:14:00 +0000

Matt -

I’m starting to like you. As a Republican who can support leftist positions (I’m all for lower tuitions, ample education funds, and LRT!!) I appreciate a Democrat who has an open mind about something like nuclear energy.

By: Tanuki

Tanuki — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:04:00 +0000

Actually, it tells me that Democratic primary voters chose Lamont, and by a very narrow margin at that. 52/48, I believe. And if memory serves, Lieberman ended up winning Democrats in the general by an equally slim margin. While winning over the overwhelming majority of independents and a goodly number of Republicans.

But on to the broader point. I think it’s healthy for people of sound judgment to disagree at times. And it’s with that point in mind that I take issue with the idea of terms like “good” and “bad” Democrat being thrown around.

Oh, and given how badly he was burned by the party establishment after losing the primary, I’m just glad Lieberman still caucuses with the Dems. Endorsing McCain was the weakest possible retaliatory move.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 22:35:21 +0000

B4JRE, I may not agree or even find problematic all your critiques of Obama, but I see how you might take issue with them. I’m nothing short of baffled, however, that your list includes him not being opposed to nuclear energy and his vote to confirm Condi.

We NEED more nuclear power plants. Modern plants that are appropriately regulated are not only extremely safe but, relative to other available mass-energy plants, green. Using carbon ball reactors, the nuclear waste is securely contained for centuries. I’m not saying they’re an end-all and be-all when it comes to our energy problems, and few are, but they’re a much better current solution than any other single technology. I’m a big supporter of wind turbines, but they can’t yet produce energy on this scale.

And as for Condi, come on, there’s simply no way anyone could come up with hard evidence at the time as to why she wasn’t qualified. The vote was 85 to 13 (2 not voting) and Clinton was a yea as well. Despite what you may think of her background and her involvement in the Bush administration, she is within the traditional realm of credible candidates for Secretary of State.

But I would agree with you that people should know who they’re voting for before they do so.