Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


BS: The president speaks

kendall 24 Feb 09 - 09:48 PM
Stilly River Sage 24 Feb 09 - 10:23 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 24 Feb 09 - 11:20 PM
dick greenhaus 24 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM
Ron Davies 24 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM
Ebbie 25 Feb 09 - 12:06 AM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Feb 09 - 12:19 AM
Little Hawk 25 Feb 09 - 01:45 AM
Richard Bridge 25 Feb 09 - 09:39 AM
Peter T. 25 Feb 09 - 09:44 AM
Donuel 25 Feb 09 - 10:00 AM
kendall 25 Feb 09 - 10:10 AM
Donuel 25 Feb 09 - 10:29 AM
Teribus 25 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM
kendall 25 Feb 09 - 11:11 AM
SINSULL 25 Feb 09 - 11:24 AM
Wesley S 25 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Feb 09 - 12:09 PM
Bill D 25 Feb 09 - 12:19 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Feb 09 - 12:29 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 09 - 01:07 PM
DougR 25 Feb 09 - 01:21 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Feb 09 - 01:32 PM
pdq 25 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM
Bill D 25 Feb 09 - 03:00 PM
Peter T. 25 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM
Amos 25 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM
Bill D 25 Feb 09 - 03:33 PM
Donuel 25 Feb 09 - 03:53 PM
kendall 25 Feb 09 - 04:01 PM
Wesley S 25 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM
SINSULL 25 Feb 09 - 04:27 PM
Genie 25 Feb 09 - 05:06 PM
Barry Finn 25 Feb 09 - 05:25 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 25 Feb 09 - 07:01 PM
Bill D 25 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM
kendall 25 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM
kendall 25 Feb 09 - 07:39 PM
Peter T. 25 Feb 09 - 08:42 PM
McGrath of Harlow 25 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 09 - 08:47 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 25 Feb 09 - 08:54 PM
mg 25 Feb 09 - 10:02 PM
bald headed step child 25 Feb 09 - 10:08 PM
Bill D 25 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM
CarolC 25 Feb 09 - 11:58 PM
Genie 26 Feb 09 - 12:02 AM
Peter T. 26 Feb 09 - 04:47 AM
Sleepy Rosie 26 Feb 09 - 05:01 AM
kendall 26 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM
Peter T. 26 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM
Q (Frank Staplin) 26 Feb 09 - 12:42 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 26 Feb 09 - 01:10 PM
Genie 26 Feb 09 - 01:53 PM
Bill D 26 Feb 09 - 03:17 PM
CarolC 26 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM
Big Mick 26 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM
Stringsinger 26 Feb 09 - 07:39 PM
Genie 27 Feb 09 - 02:52 AM
CarolC 27 Feb 09 - 03:10 AM
kendall 27 Feb 09 - 08:42 AM
robomatic 27 Feb 09 - 11:03 AM
Ebbie 27 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM
CarolC 27 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM
DougR 27 Feb 09 - 07:59 PM
kendall 27 Feb 09 - 09:08 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 27 Feb 09 - 09:23 PM
Alice 27 Feb 09 - 09:47 PM
Alice 27 Feb 09 - 10:09 PM
kendall 27 Feb 09 - 10:10 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 27 Feb 09 - 11:03 PM
CarolC 27 Feb 09 - 11:10 PM
dick greenhaus 27 Feb 09 - 11:59 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 28 Feb 09 - 12:15 AM
kendall 28 Feb 09 - 07:29 AM
dick greenhaus 28 Feb 09 - 01:05 PM
Don Firth 28 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM
pdq 28 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 02:35 PM
Don Firth 28 Feb 09 - 02:41 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 02:52 PM
kendall 28 Feb 09 - 03:00 PM
pdq 28 Feb 09 - 03:11 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 03:21 PM
John on the Sunset Coast 28 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 04:05 PM
Don Firth 28 Feb 09 - 09:34 PM
Alice 28 Feb 09 - 10:09 PM
dick greenhaus 28 Feb 09 - 11:34 PM
CarolC 28 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM
Genie 01 Mar 09 - 12:13 AM
kendall 01 Mar 09 - 08:02 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 09:48 PM

I'm watching President Obama. So far I agree with most of what he is saying, but there are two things so far that are just plain wrong.
There is no such thing as clean coal.And, this country did not invent the automobile.The modern auto was invented by a German named Gottlieb Daimler.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 10:23 PM

He spoke very well, all things considered. I wonder of Dubya tunes in these speeches? He should be kicking himself.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:20 PM

It's not how you speak, it's what you speak. On balance I prefer the not Obama.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM

John-
By the not Obama do you mean Bobby Ringall? I was a bit amused by his virtuously refusing 100 million dollars from the Impetus Package while accepting 3.7 billion.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM

"I prefer the not Obama" . Surprise, surprise.

Now all we need is a reason for this-- with some logic or sense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:06 AM

Like you said, there were a couple of jarring moments- I'm not fond of jingoistic lathering up; for one thing I don't believe it- we are not exceptional in this world (unless we accept that everybody is above average!)- and I don't think the rest of the world thinks we're so hot.

However, as a means of jollying us into visualizing a brighter future I can accept it.

That said, he had some great lines and some great themes and I was proud he is our president.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:19 AM

Well, well I need to have a reason with logic and sense. Why must i be different from a Dem or liberal in making my comments?

But, in the simplest terms that even a Ron Davies can understand, I do not favor a national government that gets overwhelmingly into the private sector and the private pocket.

During the so called moral majority period, it was said that conservatives wanted to go into everyone's bedroom. Under Pelosi/Obama the liberals want to go everywhere.

That isn't the America that I believe was intended, and I believe will bring the US to a the level of a western Europe of 25 years ago. Several European countries are now realizing that model was a failure and are changing. But I know we'll do it better. LOL on the outside, crying on the inside.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:45 AM

Everyone has a right to state their own opinions...and everyone has their own reasons for voicing those opinions. This may not be clear to someone else who disagrees with them, but it is nevertheless true...they do have their reasons.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:39 AM

Surely we should ahev learned from the great recession and the present one that free market economics do NOT in fact work, not for all, and not for the greatest benefit of the greatest number, and not even for most. They ahve given us the present crisis.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:44 AM

This is the France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, with universal health care, shorter work weeks, daycare, and a lifestyle for the middle classes that most Americans can only dream about? These countries have their problems, but interfering government is not one of them.

yours,

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:00 AM

Scrubbing technology for coal plants could be better. At least they are getting some emissions and mercury isolated better than 20 years ago.

Carbon sink tech is on the way in the form of artificial tree like devices that are virtualy miraculous in capturing CO. It uses an available plastic and hard water treatment chemical to do the trick.


-------------

After Obama roused Republicans from their seats to a standing ovation on several occaisions, Congressman Gindel gave a response with with the tone and tenor of Mr. Rogers, sic "Hello boys and girls, Don't let anyone tell you that America can't do anything, just say no to everything...Here in Louisiana, our experience with Katrina has taught us that people do more than goverment..."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:10 AM

John, all I can say is, he has been president for over a months now, and we are still in the same mess that the republicans created over the past 8 years.
The republicans are lining up to run in 2012, so it is their duty to see that O'Bama fails.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:29 AM

well Kendal, what is your plan for total failure?

Be carefull not to shoot to low in your aspiration.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM

I read through the speech today and I am surprised how few have commented on the contradictions and inconsistencies in it.

He opens with stating clearly how important it is to get the banks lending again, then he goes on to say how he's not helping the banks but the people. He then describes the people that he is going to help as the very ones who with the assistance of Freddie and Fannie started this current crisis.

Great patches of it could only be described as palliative and the proposed "unprecedented oversight" that "No-one-messes-with-Joe-Biden" will only serve to slam the brakes on recovery as everybody throughout US Government be it local, state or federal goes into "cover-my-ass" mode.

He's all for tough new regulations on banking, which ignores the facts that there was nothing wrong with the present ones, all the procedures, regulations and systems are in place and they work - provided those employed by those regulatory bodies actually use them - In the case of Madoff the whistle was being blown years ago, but nobody in the relevant agencies bothered to act - That is human error, it is not procedural, regulatory or systemic failure.

To have what the countries mentioned by Peter T have is simple - You (everybody) just pay one hell of a lot more tax.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:11 AM

Teribus, you could find fault with the Gettysburg Address.

Donuel, I don't need a plan, I'm not president.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:24 AM

Random thoughts:
The interruptions for useless applause annoyed the hell out of me. It s ridiculous sucking up and should not be allowed.

If the 800 billion that was pissed away and not accounted for could have been given to every citizen who ever paid taxes. The result - new mortgages, new cars, paid up credit cards...

I prefer cats to dogs. Seamus doesn't count. He is an eight year old boy in a dog suit.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM

I have to agree with Sinsull. No matter how good the speech was the message gets watered down when Nancy Pelosi pops up like a jack in the box every 30 seconds or so. She needs to show some restraint.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:09 PM

The one glaring form of energy not mentioned in the President's speech, was Nuclear Energy. The Luddites of America have made this option untenable for no good reason. Nuclear fuel can reprocessed and reused until the the amount necessary to be stored is very manageable. There has never been a nuclear accident that has happened in an American plant that has caused substantial environmental problems, beyond that of gas or coal plants, and probably less. Even the worst disaster at a nuclear power plant caused no loss of life, and released minimal to no radiation. And engineering technology makes new plants even safer

A nuclear power plant begun today can be on line in a few years, providing more kilowatts than wind or solar, and do it with a much smaller footprint, less impact on the environment, and more aesthetically pleasing than the other alternatives.

Was he pandering to the Luddites and extreme environmentalists with this omission? Personally, I don't believe this omission was a mere oversight, as my wife thinks it was.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:19 PM

John OTSC said:

"I do not favor a national government that gets overwhelmingly into the private sector and the private pocket."

This seems to be the ultimate, base, overriding concept most serious conservatives fall back on... well, that and tax cuts for the rich.

Now, that sounds like a nice slogan on its face, but 'small, unobstrusive government' requires a lot of assumptions to work...not the least of which is a sane, honest and competent "private sector".
We are now in a place where the deregulation which the Republicans, led by Phil Graham, rammed down our throats a few years back, has played a major role in creating this crisis!

Some one said last night (I think in response to Jindal's speech) that the Republicans are now saying "yes, we know we overspent and allowed cheating and supported a bad war, but TRUST US now...we promise we won't do it again"!

And what do they propose as a sane, reasonable course of action? Why, more of the same principles & practices! They vote AGAINST almost everything Obama tries to do...why? Because they, by God, have a slogan that says "big government is bad!"

Sorry, John...big government is what you make it. HONEST government can do fine. If regulation is needed to oversee and control complex issues, and we out honest, intelligent people to work DOING the oversight, eventually everyone should be well-served. It's just that 'some' won't be as well-served as they feel is their right...like when they were able to manipulate the system for personal gain....with the results we now see!

This is gonna be HARD to fix....and Obama last night made the point that he was not going to tolerate the pork and earmarks and wasteful crap that has gone on for 7-8 years. (Halliburton must be quaking in it's collective boots!)


So....keep repeating your ..."Get government out of our...whatever" ...mantra, but get used to the idea that if YOUR systems leads to problems, then we get to try OUR system. It would behoove the conservatives to try some grudging cooperation and rethinking of just exactly what they really want to promote if they EVER want to get back any semblance of respect.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:29 PM

"Obama last night made the point that he was not going to tolerate the pork and earmarks and wasteful crap that has gone on for 7-8 years. (Halliburton must be quaking in it's collective boots!)"

We'll see. He may speak, Congress enacts. We'll see if Obama has the strength of ten because his heart is pure. Pure it may be, but reality becomes a mighty foe.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:07 PM

Nuclear power is not cost effective, and there is the problem of storing the waste.

Coal will never be clean because there will never be a clean way to remove the coal from the ground.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: DougR
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:21 PM

OTSC: Obama has already failed to deliver on a couple of his linchpin campaign promises. What happened to:

(Paraphrasing) "Before I sign a piece of legislation, it will be clearly reproduced on the Internet for five days before I sign or reject it."

(Paraphrasing) "I will not abide pork in the stimulus package."
So funds to help remove tattoos is a national priority?

If,OTSC, you were to explain your position in clear and concise language, I doubt very much that the complainer would understand it. He certainly would not agree with it, so what's the point?

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:32 PM

"Nuclear power is not cost effective, and there is the problem of storing the waste."

If this is true, and I'm not sure it is, the cause is unwarranted obstacles.

If the spent fuel is reprocessed--it is not now permitted to be--and reused, the storage problems become geometrically diminished.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: pdq
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

Coal is used to produce over 50% of the electricity we use in the United States.

Nuclear reactors produce an additional 23%, for a total approximately 75%.

Another major producer of electricity is the hydroelectric dam system. New dams of the size needed to make a difference will never be built again, according to experts, partly due to cost and partly due to Environmental activism.

So, may I suggest that the people who hate coal and nuclear power turn off the lights, unplug their computers and electrical appliances, and retreat back to the Pre-Columbian era. The rest of us will carry on.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:00 PM

We will BE using 'some' coal in some form for awhile yet.... having cleaner coal as one of his prescriptions is not a contradiction in Obama's plan. He makes it clear that clean energy ss a priority, and that the dangerous, dirty coal industry ought to be phased out...or at least significantly reduced... as soon as possible.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

" We'll see if Obama has the strength of ten because his heart is pure. Pure it may be, but reality becomes a mighty foe."

   Oh, indeed, John...he may need the strength of 20 if the Republicans fight him on every issue....and in 2010, he may get that extra 20... *smile*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM

Cleaner coal is like "cleaning up" the CIA. It's a lie, and a waste of time.   Another band of dinosaurs is the nuclear industry -- waste disposal is not solved, uranium mining continues to despoil the landscape, and proliferation (cf. Iran, India, Pakistan, etc.) continues on its merry pace. Not to mention the big issue for all you free marketers: not one single nuclear power plant will ever be built again without massive government subsidy. They are big and stupid and last about 40 years. Meanwhile, with a similar subsidy, and perhaps a fraction of the billions of dollars being spent on the military protecting the precious oil traffic, and some of what goes to a a coal industry that also the beneficiary of heaps of money (not to mention the ability to sidestep environmental regulation), North America could go green in ten years (Al Gore is right).
yours,

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

The resistance to nuclear is not based on Ludditism, John.

It is based on the cost benefit ratio, including the risks of dealing with spent fuel. A nano-disassembly process would probably resolve that but we are still a way off from that capability.

It would probably be safe, but not cost-effective, to drop them into the cracks betweent he tectonic plates at the bottom of the Marianas, too.

Your notion of reprocessing and reusing spent fuel doesn't work as far as I know--what do you think spent radioactive fuel would be reprocessed into, and how?

There may yet be a new generation of nuclear power in our future, with nano-engineered materials and a very different technological approach, but reiterating the breakthroughs and technology of the Fifties is just not smart or cost effective.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:33 PM

Now, Peter... the processing and burning of coal CAN be improved. It already has been in the past with scrubbers and such. Enough? No... it will never be clean enough, but until we DO the other stuff going, we will be using some. You can't just scrap ANY entrenched industry overnight. Even if 10 years were a reasonable theoretical goal for identifying and planning enough green energy sources, the construction of alternative distribution systems and deactivating coal-burning plants would take longer than 10 years, I'd bet.

As for nuclear, I rather agree that building more horribly expensive plants with inadequate safety systems and more disposal issues is not a reasonable idea.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:53 PM

Ebbie, hyperbole may not be your personal favorite, yet I do believe that America has some intrinsic advantages that other nations do not share. Most Americans still do not recognize that our Republic owes an historic debt to France, their aid in our revolution and to their democracy which we have pursued in our own infathomable ways.

We stand on the shoulders of giants and have become giants ourselves.

Lately we have grown too big for our own britches.

3 trillion dollars off budget money for The Bush wars on top of the global cheating Wall street scandel still has the potential to devastate our citizens.

I for one was inspired to go back to school as Obama advised.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:01 PM

No damage? How about 3 mile island? How about Chernoble? H.w about that nuclear plant that they built on a fault line in California?
There are other options to dangerous, dirty sources of power, Wind, water and sunlight, and all free! Thats why they are not being built, NO PROFIT to the fat cats.
Why did Reagan have the solar panels removed from the roof of the White House?

How many of you have heard of the Quoddy project? The tides in the Bay of Fundy   could produce enough power to serve the whole Northeast, and if it had been built when Roosevelt was president, as he proposed, we would be s.....g in tall cotton by now!

Maine Yankee, a nuclear plant in Wiscasset Maine; when it was built back in the 70's we were promised almost free electricity. Right, free my fat aunt harriet. It cost millions to build and multi millions to decommission,and there is still a pile of spent fuel that they don't know what to do with.

"It's a dirty bird that beshits its own nest."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM

Is the Quoddy project about water turbines that produce electricity? It sounds like an amazing resource to me.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:27 PM

No damage? Have you ever looked at the cancer statistics for the area around Los Alamos?
http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/RTKCancer.pdf

Land, animals and people still suffer from experiments carried out at the end of WWII.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Bobby Jindal's Republican response to Obama speech
From: Genie
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:06 PM

Donuel: "After Obama roused Republicans from their seats to a standing ovation on several occaisions, Congressman Gindel gave a response with with the tone and tenor of Mr. Rogers, sic 'Hello boys and girls, Don't let anyone tell you that America can't do anything, just say no to everything...Here in Louisiana, our experience with Katrina has taught us that people do more than goverment...' "

OK, it's tangential to this thread topic (as is a lot of the rest of the thread), but I've gotta say this:
The guy who gave the Republican response to Obama's speech is Prakash "Bobby" Jindal (not Gindel or Ringall), and he is the Governor of Louisiana (no longer a Congressman).

As for the content of his speech and its content, well, I think that deserves its own thread. LOL


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:25 PM

Let's get it straight. It was Bush that failed Louisiana & he's no longer in office.

Barry


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:01 PM

"No damage? How about 3 mile island? How about Chernoble? H.w [sic]about that nuclear plant that they built on a fault line in California?"

To get the easiest out of the first: where in America, exactly, is Chernoble? Read what I wrote.

3 Mile Island, no radiation leak, no loss of life. Environmental damage minimal and has been repairing itself...look it up.

Perhaps, you have a case with the location in Calif., Diablo Canyon, think. But it has held up well in nearby earthquakes. Will it survive an 8.0? Will anything?

Engineering and technology of the past 25 years has made the construction of nuclear power plants even safer then those of the past.

As I said, if nuclear is not cost effective, it is because of the stupid roadblocks put up by Luddites. We have a similar problem where I live with respect of Cellular Phone towers. They're a blight (they don't have to be) and they cause cancer...but they don't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM

"3 Mile Island, no radiation leak, no loss of life. Environmental damage minimal and has been repairing itself...look it up."

right... and have YOU looked up exactly how close that came to being another Chernobyl? Only a little luck prevented a disaster.

I have a bit of knowledge on this. I know personally the guy who took the 1st phone call at EPA from the 3MI site, and those folks were flat scared for 2 days!

It's very much like oil spills and tankers sinking...eventually, something WILL go wrong. But the results can be worse than any oil spill.

What we get with modern technological progress is a higher **margin** of safety. In some things, that's just not enough.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM

I mentioned Chernoble as an example of what COULD go wrong, and you know what Murphy's Law says.
The fact is, nuclear, coal and oil have serious drawbacks and wind, water and solar do not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:39 PM

The tides in the Bay of Fundy rise to 50 to 60 feet. I have had reason to enter Eastport Maine when the tide was ebbing, and with the engine running full speed we barely made headway. The boat was a 40 foot wooden patrol boat with a 671 diesel engine. It was no match for that tidal flow.It runs twice a day and it's free.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:42 PM

I think you make good points Bill D. My biggest bitch is that I spend half my time working with engineers -- and engineers are built to solve problems -- so what are the thousands of engineers out there doing? Redesigning ashtrays in automobiles and tinkering with nuclear power and coal scrubbers.

I have great faith in Yankee knowhow (I'm not American) and inventiveness. If they just let them really and truly loose on the energy problem, it could be solved in no time flat. But most of their energy is still going to go into stupid things like cleaner coal and ethanol.   

yours,

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM

"...I believe will bring the US to a the level of a western Europe of 25 years ago."

That would be 1984, slap-bang in the middle of Thatcherism in this corner of Western Europe. Pretty unpleasant time in many many ways.

I don't get the impression Obama is headed quite in that direction.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:47 PM

On the subject of the stimulus package and tattoo removal, the bill that contains funding for gang related tattoo removal is not a part of the stimulus bill. It is part of an entirely different bill.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:54 PM

More digression-
The Bay of Fundy is Canadian; it is famous for its biodiversity and sealife.
Eastport, Maine, is nicely hidden behind Campobello Island (Canadian); a little farther out is the Grand Manan Channel between Grand Manan Island (Canadian) and Maine.

Initial efforts by Canada to develop tidal power in the Bay of Fundy have begun, but the area is too important economically and ecologically to allow for developments that would severely affect the fishing, tourism and ecology.

Parrsville, Nova Scotia will be the first site for a turbine, if environmental reviews OK the tests; possibly early in 2010. Minas Basin Pulp & Power, UEK of Maryland (turbines), Nova Scotia Power, and capital and expertise from Ireland (turbines), B. C., and Encana of Calgary are involved.

Nova Scotia hopes to eventually obtain 20% of its power needs from the project. Several articles from different sources here:
Fundy Energy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: mg
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:02 PM

I didn't listen to the whole speach..I heard some of Jindal's??? and thought it was quite nice. I wonder if Obama has given much thought to farms and maintaining the food supply in these trying times...

One big problem is agricultural lands being turned into vinyards. The other of course is development. As long as we can revert to growing food, I don't mind, but that is a big if.

I also wonder why to stimulate the economy we don't hire a bunch of local people damn near everywhere and build standard, plain, community health clinics. A few staff added, head by a nurse, and there you go. I would build health for all up through public health programs to start with. Many many everywhere. No nurses? I say again, free tuition for anyone wanting to go into public health nursing. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: bald headed step child
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:08 PM

I listened to both speeches last night.

Obama's speech was well directed, I believe, at the problems we are facing, and offered ideas to solve them.

I was offended by Jindal's speech, as it reminded me of story time at a pre-school. Maybe he was just doing that in case George was listening, so he could understand, but I don't need a politician talking to me like I'm 3 years old.

Jindal said a lot about all he's done for New Orleans, but I have one question for him. How many people have been able to return to their homes in the lower 9th ward? The answer is ZERO.

Jindal should have talked about what he's done for the corporate hotels, and other corporate interests in the "nice" parts of town.

BHSC


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM

",,,so what are the thousands of engineers out there doing? Redesigning ashtrays in automobiles and tinkering with nuclear power and coal scrubbers."

If that is the case, Peter, then this administrations needs to change the proportions...just as they would alter the types & use of troops in wartime. Engineers like **solving problems** and as my friend at EPA pointed out years ago, some technical problems are just more fun than others. Building windmills is viewed as kinda dull compared to nuclear power plants. So, incentives would need to be offered, as well as subsidies to the green power industries. That doesn't mean that corrective measures that we already have can't be improved & applied to coal plants and mining techniques. A few engineers can be spared until we get up to speed on green technologies.

why am I remembering the old sign...

"When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember your objective was to drain the swamp."?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:58 PM

Bobby Jindal and Kenneth the page


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Genie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:02 AM

mg -"
... I wonder if Obama has given much thought to farms and maintaining the food supply in these trying times...

One big problem is agricultural lands being turned into vinyards. The other of course is development. As long as we can revert to growing food, I don't mind, but that is a big if."

Good questions, Mary. I wouldn't assume Barack isn't planning to address these issues just because they weren't specifically addressed in this speech, but I hope he and Congress plan to deal (wisely) with them.

He also didn't address how legalizing the agricultural hemp industry could do wonders for addressing our needs for fuel, fabric, paper, and a host of food and medicinal product, but I'm holding out hope that maybe the public can be brought to open their eyes about that too.

mg: "I also wonder why to stimulate the economy we don't hire a bunch of local people damn near everywhere and build standard, plain, community health clinics. A few staff added, head by a nurse, and there you go. I would build health for all up through public health programs to start with. Many many everywhere. No nurses? I say again, free tuition for anyone wanting to go into public health nursing."
Again I agree. Although right now we wouldn't really have a shortage of nurses if competent licencsed RNs were allowed to return to practice more readily after taking 3 or 4 years' leave of absence (e.g., to have kids).

The most important thing we need to address -- and this is something Obama did not deal with in this speech -- is the question of why the corporate profit motive should be thrown into the mix between the patients and the health care providers (doctors, nurses, aides, and essential administrative staff).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:47 AM

There can only be two reasons why building windmills is seen as less fun than building nuclear power plants: (1) bad teaching of engineering. A good engineering problem is a good engineering problem (designing a good paper airplane is perhaps the most fun of anything); (2) penises. Nuclear power plants are seen as big guy penises, and windmills wimpy. Perhaps the solution is to design big thick vertical windmills with two smaller windmills on either side. That might get the attention.

yours,

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 05:01 AM

And don't forget the fact that a windmill farm won't be a lasting monument. After all decommissioning of a windmill farm is a pretty minimal and fuss free business compared to a nuclear power plant. Where's the grand legacy in that - I mean who's ever gonna remember your great big 'monument' and gift to to civilisation, if it can just get demolished like so much lego?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM

Q Cobscook Bay is entirely on the American side, and the only heavy industry there is a 300 pound Avon Lady.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 10:09 AM

(a 300 pound Avon Lady -- I laughed like a drain!) Thanks, kendall.

yours,

Peter T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:42 PM

ORPC has experimented with a turbine pilot in Cobscook Bay. The site would require transmission lines. It might provide a percentage of power to Maine, but approval of any large scale turbine system is questionable. Many of the same problems as the Nova Scotia site.

Wave energy proposals seem more likely to generate larger amounts of power, but so far experimentation seems mostly confined to Europe. It's future, however, looks interesting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 01:10 PM

Kendall's suggestion of Cobscook Bay led me to this article which is a good overview of tide and wave generated power proposals:

http://alliance.strategies.org/docs/All_ocean_energy_presentations.pdf

"Energy from the Oceans." Well-worth reading.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: Piyush "Bobby" Jindal
From: Genie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 01:53 PM

Thanks for that Bobby Jindal to Kenneth The Page link, Carol. LOL

Here's one of the best 'morph' jobs (and pretty easy to see even if you're on dial-up).

http://thedw.us/post/81401310/via
Bobby Jindal morphs into Kenneth The Page in 4 sec.

And, oh, by the way, I misstated his first name. It's Piyush, not Prakash. Om Prakash Jindal is a different person.    Piyush Jindal, who, as a child watching The Brady Bunch, adopted the nickname of his favorite character, "Bobby," is the current Governor of Louisiana and reportedly among the Republicans' favorites to run for US President in 2012.

(To those who criticize or ridicule Jindal for choosing to be "Bobby" instead of "Piyush" even in professional/political life, I must ask if that's any more odd than Edmund Gerald Brown, Sr. being commonly known as "Pat."
To those Republicans who try to marginalize or demonize Barack Hussein Obama for having a name that sounds strange and foreign to "most Americans," I ask whether you'd want your political rivals to similarly exploit a name like Piyush Jindal.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 03:17 PM

I don't care what his name is. He can call himself Rumplestiltskin for all I care. I just would not want to listen to him for 4+ years.

He is said to be quite 'intelligent', but intelligence is expressed in various ways. Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich were not dumb.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 05:51 PM

They demonized Obama's name because they considered that it sounded Muslim, rather than because it sounded strange. And especially because he shares his middle name with one of the most demonized and hated people in US' list of enemies. Of course, the idea that a name can confer on a person the same characteristics or loyalties as another person with the same name is pretty moronic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Big Mick
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 06:00 PM

Anyone who suggests that the use of Barak Hussein Obama in the campaign rhetoric was anything other than an attempt to create fear in the minds of the masses is either ignorant, or they have taken the term disengenuous to new heights. It was a blatant attempt to play on the anti Moslem fears, and ignorance, of the ill informed. These are the same people that would deny the ape cartoon, or the watermelon patch at the White House, were racist.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 07:39 PM

The banks (the zombies) hoodwinked the people who bought into the mythology of "the American Dream" home ownership scam. The banks sat on their big fat bad ass-ets.

it was one of the biggest Ponzi schemes in history.

When the president speaks, Smith-Barney doesn't listen.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Genie
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 02:52 AM

Mick and Carol, you're right, obviously, that Obama's opponents emphasized the "Hussein" middle name as a way of trying to tie him (quite irrationally) to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 by playing up the name he shares with the former dictator of Iraq.    (Trying to make Americans forget that there are and have been other leaders named "Hussein" and some have been our allies. And that Saddam Hussein was neither a friend of Al Quaeda nor involved in the 9-1 attacks.)   The aim was to lead the gullible to think "Hussein" = muslim = Arab = terrorist.   
They also tried to capitalize on the similar sound of "Obama" and "Osama."

But beyond that, there was still the idea that a name like Barack Obama just plain stands out like a sore thumb amid all the other Anglo-European sounding names of our other Presidents.   Even if we'd never invaded Iraq to depose a guy named Hussein and even if a Muslim guy named Osama hadn't been behind a major terrorist attack on the US, a candidate like Barack Hussein Obama would probaby have had an easier time getting elected if his name had been something like Jonathan Williams or Edward Stevens.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 03:10 AM

Yes, that's probably true.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 08:42 AM

They seemed to forget that one of our staunch allies in the middle east was named Hussein, King of Jordan.Remember the photos of the King of Jordan driving O'Bama to the airport? And the photos of John McWar being driven around in a golf cart by former president Bush? Some contrast, eh?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: robomatic
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 11:03 AM

I expect we'll solve the nuclear waste problem by developing a bacterium that eats all the nuclear out of it!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM

And then, Robo, we'll have to create/discover an antidote to the bacteria. Radioactive bacteria. 'Tis ever thus.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM

That scenario reminds me of The Cat in the Hat, the one with the pink cake icing that spreads more and more the more the Cat tries to make it go away.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: DougR
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 07:59 PM

I wish the president would speak less often. Every time he opens his mouth the stock market takes a dive.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 09:08 PM

Most of us have no stocks, Doug.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 09:23 PM

Kendall, you may be wrong about stock ownership.

In 2005, the last year I could get figures for easily, over 20% of Americans directly owned stocks; about 49% of American families owned shares in mutual funds. Allowing for some overlap between the two, and considering that most funds invest all or part in equities (stocks), I would surmise that perhaps 60% or more of Americans own stock either directly or indirectly.

Considering the market turn down, this figure may have dropped a bit, but many people have had to hold on to dwindling prices in hopes of a comeback, I would think the percentage is still well above 50%.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 09:47 PM

"with a much smaller footprint, less impact on the environment, and more aesthetically pleasing than the other alternatives"

What alternate reality did that come from?
You've never heard of Chernobyl? Just because a Chernobyl hasn't happened in America yet, that means it can't happen? ... and oh, not to mention the radioactive waste no one knows what to do with.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:09 PM

I worked in the field of alternative energy and conservation in the late 70's, early 80's, and my mentor and teacher was Amory Lovins.

Decentralized micropower generation is much more secure (harder to disable a region or city), and can be more reliable, efficient, and have less impact on the environment than large, centralized power plants.

I'd just like to share with Mudcatters who are interested in solutions to the energy problems, this blog post by Lovins at the NY Times:

snip
If I told you, "Many people need computing services, so we'd better build more mainframe computer centers where you can come run your computing task," you'd probably reply, "We did that in the 1960's, but now we use networked PC's." Or if I said, "Many people make phone calls, so we'd better build more big telephone exchanges full of relays and copper wires," you'd exclaim, "Where have you been? We use distributed packet-switching."

snip
Meanwhile, generators thousands or tens of thousands of times smaller — microturbines, solar cells, fuel cells, wind turbines — started to become serious competitors, often enabled by IT and telecoms. The restructured industry exposed previously sheltered power-plant builders to brutal market discipline. Competition from a swarm of smaller electrical sources and savings created financial risks far beyond the capital markets' appetite. Moreover, the 2008 Defense Science Board report "More Fight, Less Fuel" advised U.S. military bases to make their own power onsite, preferably from renewables, because the grid is vulnerable to long and vast disruptions.
snip

It's a short article, and well worth a read.
Here is the link.
Does a big economy need big power plants?

Here is the web site for Amory Lovins' research, The Rocky Mountain Institute.
http://rmi.org/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 10:10 PM

I guess I should have been a bit more careful. I should have said, I don't know anyone who has stocks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 11:03 PM

Damn it, why don't people read what is written?
"You've never heard of Chernobyl?"
I didn't say I've never heard of Chernobyl. Read my statement and then my response to the Chernobyl comment that followed. I know you're smarter than those comments you just wrote, Alice.
The design and engineering and the redundant safety systems (if there were any) in Ukraine were well below the standards of the US and France.
Speaking of France, they seem to be handling their nuclear facilities and waste quite well
There is a book out right now, the title of which escapes me, but I've heard the author speak twice; she makes a compelling case for the safety of running plants and the safe storage of the spent fuel. I'll try to recall it in the next day or two.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 11:10 PM

Still, as noted above, micropower generation is the most secure option. A nuclear power plant that serves a large area is much more vulnerable to all kinds of things than a lot of much smaller plants in a large network.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Feb 09 - 11:59 PM

The full story of what happened at Four Mile island may never be told...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 12:15 AM

What happened a Four Mile Island?...did Three Mile Island mutate...grow another mile because of radioactivity?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 07:29 AM

As far as I know, there is no such thing as safe storage of spent fuel. John, if you know something I don't let's hear it.

By the very nature of nuclear power it is very dangerous. Accidents happen. I've never heard of a windmill blowing up, or run away solar panels.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 01:05 PM

John-
No. One mile got suppressed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM

Hanford, Washington, where much of the initial research on atomic bombs was conducted, has unintentionally become a toxic waste dump, with nuclear waste from leaking tanks making its way through the ground water toward the Columbia River. Experiments with nuclear power, both the explosive and non-explosive kinds, have been conducted there since the early 1940s. Hanford practically glows in the dark. There are people in the area, the Tri-Cities (Richland, Pasco, Kennewick), who refer to themselves as "downwinders." Among this group, the rate of things like thyroid cancer are way above average.

Some years back, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, aptly acronymed "Woops") was going to build several nuclear power plants around Washington State. The voters protested and voted it down, out, and gone. It wasn't just the ecological impact, it was because even before the first shovelfuls of dirt were turned over, the projects went into huge cost over-runs.

There are also rumors of an "incident" that took place at the Trojan nuclear plant on the Columbia River in southwest Washington, but it was hastily hushed up.

There are a number of alternative energy sources, relatively inexpensive, with no waste problems and minimal environmental impact, that have hardly even been investigated yet

Nuclear power? No, thank you!

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 02:24 PM

The problem is that radiation is deadly long beyond the time we can foresee being able to control its disposal or storage.

a quote:
"Because some radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years, even very low container leakage and radionuclide migration rates must be taken into account.[31] Moreover, it may require more than one half-life until some nuclear materials lose enough radioactivity to no longer be lethal to living things. A 1983 review of the Swedish radioactive waste disposal program by the National Academy of Sciences found that country's estimate of several hundred thousand years—perhaps up to one million years—being necessary for waste isolation "fully justified."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: pdq
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 02:33 PM

"...radioactive species have half-lives longer than one million years"

The term "half-life" means that the crap is only half as bad as it was. It ain't truely harmless for perhaps billions of years.

Another voice for "no nukes".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 02:35 PM

pdq, I and most mudcatters know what half life means.

The long term storage problem still stands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 02:41 PM

It the leakage from the waste storage tanks at Hanford make it to the Columbia River, then nuclear waste will be flowing into the Pacific Ocean. Another consideration:   the Columbia is a major salmon spawning river. What will that do to the salmon, already an endangered species. Or, for that matter, how would you like to sit down to a nice salmon steak that has a tendency to glow a bit?

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 02:52 PM

This is from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Maybe the skeptics will believe the NRC.

"High-level wastes are hazardous to humans and other life forms because of their high radiation levels that are capable of producing fatal doses during short periods of direct exposure. For example, ten years after removal from a reactor, the surface dose rate for a typical spent fuel assembly exceeds 10,000 rem/hour, whereas a fatal whole-body dose for humans is about 500 rem (if received all at one time). Furthermore, if constituents of these high-level wastes were to get into ground water or rivers, they could enter into food chains. Although the dose produced through this indirect exposure is much smaller than a direct exposure dose, there is a greater potential for a larger population to be exposed."

snip

"At this time there are no facilities for permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Since the only way radioactive wastes finally become harmless is through decay, which for some isotopes contained in high-level wastes can take hundreds of thousands of years, the wastes must be stored in a way that provides adequate protection for very long times."

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 03:00 PM

Why dance with the Devil when other sources of power are free and non toxic? It's a no brainer!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: pdq
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 03:11 PM

The subject started out being Obama's speech. We seem to be getting was off-topic, as usual.

As I said already, some people have serious problems with coal, hydrolectrical and nuclear power plants.

So, what do we use so that our 310,000,000 people get electricity?

Perhaps someone closer to the state of Washington could explain why there are many areas in Grand Coule Dam that are intended for generators that are not being used?

Perhaps someone could explain why no Obama Stimulus Bill money goes to upgrading the aged generators to "stste-of-the-art" ones?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 03:21 PM

see my link to the Amory Lovins article
It addresses your question about the best course for electrical generation in the US.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

The book I alluded to in an earlier post is "Power to Save the World
The Truth About Nuclear Energy" by Gwyneth Cravens.

I have not read the book, but have heard her speak about it twice. As I recall, she feels technology at the power plant level makes nuclear power very safe. She also said that if nuclear fuel is reprocessed until the reprocessing process becomes becomes uneconomic, the remaining fuel is very compact, can be encased in thick glass and stored in deep underground areas without problem. The US does not currently allow reprocessing, according to her, while European countries do. I simplify from what I heard...her facts were much more detailed.

She said when she began to research the book, she leaned towards an anti-nuclear power position, and as she researched the engineering and science she came to a pro-nuclear power position.

If sailors can live for months at a time in nuclear powered submarines, I see no reason for not using nuclear power on land where few people live in such close proximity to controlled radiation.

Finally, it is an apples to oranges comparison to speak of experimental radiation programs at Hanford fifty or so years ago to well engineered, closely monitored power plants of today.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 03:38 PM

Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?

Amory Lovins is an economist and a physicist. His think tank fosters efficiency for business and government.

The article is worth reading.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 04:05 PM

No matter what sources of energy we develop, the first consideration should be efficiency (and I'm not talking about freezing in the dark type of ideas).
Cutting down on all the ways we waste energy is important for our national security and economic stability. Building efficient buildings, transportation systems and land use planning is fundamental.

Efficiency is the foundation concept at the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Sweaters Are Not the Answer

snip
"It's cheaper to save fuel than it is to go find more of it. And it's ineffective to put our efforts into developing biofuels or renewable energy if we pump it into an inefficient system that fritters most of it away."

Alice


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 09:34 PM

What Alice said.

A modest proposal. It certainly won't solve all our energy problems, but it will certainly go a long way. And it has been done, so it is proven.

For two and a half years I worked as a technical writer under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. The BPA had been commissioned by the Department of Energy (formerly the Atomic Energy Commission) to come up with new and economical sources of electricity. The BPA did a number of different studies repeatedly, and much to their general distress (they were bucking for more power dams, coal-fired power plants—and to overturn the voters' vetoing the WPPSS [Woops!] nuclear plant program [see my post above]), they were dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that the most environmentally sound and economical source of new energy was—conservation.

So the BPA instituted a program of providing funds for a statewide residential weatherization program. This program proved to be very popular (saved everybody money), except with those who wanted to build various kinds of new power plants. Lowered people's light and heating bills. It proved so popular—and successful—that the State of Washington initiated the Oil Help program for insulating residences that heated with oil rather than electricity. This, too, proved very popular, since it saved those who took advantage of the program substantial amounts on their yearly heating bills. The only folks who were unhappy with the program were the oil companies, especially the home heating oil companies. I worked on this program as well, writing reports consolidating the findings of field inspectors, so I was privy to what was really going on.

After about three years, for some unexplained reason, these highly successful and popular programs were terminated.

Don Firth


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 10:09 PM

To bring this back to the presidents, energy efficiency is part of the new energy agenda.

quote
"Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 11:34 PM

Wind and solar energy are not a big factor in US energy production simply because the cost per KWH is higher than that of energy produced by coal, gas or nuclear energy. This may change some as technology improves and fuel prices rise, but in the next decade or so, these "free" energy sources can only survive with the help of sizable subsidies.

I speak as one who is happily living with solar electric panels on my roof--but I couldn't have done it without a big boost from the State of New Jersey.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM

Subsidies will help to jump start the economy that will make solar, wind, and other green technologies become cost effective through economy of scale. Once that happens, the growth in this sector will fuel an economic boom in this country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Genie
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 12:13 AM

The most effective and probably least expensive short-term AND long-term way of dealing with the energy crisis is to cut down on demand.   That can be done in lots of ways, including reducing speed limits, building more energy efficient buildings and appliances and retrofitting older ones, encouraging and facilitating things like walking and bicycling and mass transporation, and discouraging overconsumption in many areas.   (E.g., why do so many Americans throw away stuff like plastic and paper containers and then go out and buy exactly what they just threw away?)

Yes, we do need transportation, heating, lighting etc., but do we Americans really need half as much as we use?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 01 Mar 09 - 08:02 AM

The inescapable fact is, fossil fuels are a finite resource. They will run out and we will be forced to come up with some other source. Will we wait until the last drop of gasoline is burned? If we wait until then will our air be so polluted with hydrocarbons that solar panels wont work?

As long as bought and paid for "scientists" who tell us what we want to hear are allowed to get away with their false reports we will do nothing,and the polluters will continue to laugh at Al Gore.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 17 January 2:44 PM EST

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.