AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Possibly. But it was such a non sequitur to the discussion, I thought DTOM must surely mean MACs in general. (And yes, I was being facetious.)

Anyhow, at the time he said it, those in Congress involved in National Security might actually have known where he was. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then though.

Well, we're talking about 6 months ago. I doubt that we knew where Bin Laden was 6 months ago. McCain was likely talking out his ass.

As for the question of 'realism' in energy policy, I would say: both candidates were about equally realistic, which is to say, they both were optimistic.

However, I wonder if anyone bothered to tell McCain that 'clean coal' doesn't exist, and that it would take decades to build the nuke plants he believes we should be using.

Cycloptichorn

Is that a reference to "water-boarding"?

your post immediately prior to DTOM's "mac" referenced McCain. perhaps you'd forgotten the historical use of mac as a nickname before your tribe tried to adopt it.

You are extraordinarily naughty.

Well if every politician is to be condemned for making a bold pronouncement on which he has no chance of delivering, I doubt we'll be able to give John McCain a grade that is more failing that that Barack Obama will receive.

Where do you get your idea that it takes decades to build a nuclear power plant? We already have the design, the know how, and the raw materials necessary to do it. All it would take is a stroke of the Presidential pen to remove the regulatory barriers in place. Admittedly, if we continue to have a radically leftist Congress, that could make it more difficult if Congress decided to stand in the way.

I am not a reader of the EIR, but this article came up first on my search results when researching how long it takes to build a nuclear power plant. Perhaps GeorgeOb1 could express an opinion on the accuracy of the statement below?

I'm looking for a little program I used to be able to install on these threads to boot up a missing sense of humor. Since I can't readily locate it, perhaps if you would look again at my whole point, you might get it anyway? Anyway, it was a member of YOUR 'tribe' who coined the phrase MAC as an acronym for this thread.

Have you considered the idea that others' sense of humor is just fine, and that it really wasn't very funny?

Cycloptichorn

How do you know?

I do know that when things are taken out of context, they can be made to look very different than the actual intent of the statement and there are a few who throw out insults who are completely ignorant on the history of that which they disparage. But nobody here would do that of course. Nah. Not a chance. (Hint: that was also sarcastic humor--I'm still looking for that little program for those who aren't quite getting it yet.)

Did you mean your 'decades to build a nuclear power plant' to be a joke?

McCain's proposal was to build 100 new nuclear power plants. I'm sure you still remember that.

Okie: The imbecile Cicerone Imposter, who does not know that we won the war with Japan wrote:

parados, okie usually doesn't know what he's talking about; that's the reason why I put him on my Ignore list.

Don't be flusterered, Okie. Be proud./ The moronic Cicerone Imposter cannot debate with you . He is afraid of you. That is why he has you on ignore. If he knew he could rebut your arguments easily, he would not put you on ignore. But Cicerone Imposter loves to play chimpanzee grooming the other left wing chimpanzees.

No I don't remember that. He may have said that and he may not have said that, but it doesn't really matter does it? But if we got started right away we would definitely have more nuclear power plants sooner than we will have them if everybody just sits on their hands and complains how long it would take to build them, right? And would it take 100 nuclear plants to replace the oil we import from 'places that don't like us very much?' I doubt it. Is nuclear the answer to all our energy needs? Of course not, but it is a clean and extremely efficient way to buy us time while we develop the technology for energy we will need in the future.

And a nation who put a man on the moon should also be able to develop technology to use coal in a clean and environmentally friendly way. Government should be providing incentives for us to be working on that too.

McCain is a politician and he's going to say stuff that he can't deliver just like Obama says stuff that he can't deliver. I doubt anybody has ever run for office for anything who didn't promise at least one thing s/he couldn't deliver and probably knew it. To condemn one guy and not the other for that however, is pure partisanship and ideology with no reasonableness or fairness built in.

(In fairness to Cyclop he didn't say it would take decades to build one nuclear plant. But if we started now, we could have a whole bunch of them under construction and up and running probably sufficient to take care of our Middle east/Venezuelan oil import problem within five or six years.)

Okie--Note the imbecilic response by Old Europe. Foxfyre shot down the lie that it takes years and years and years to build Nuclear Plants. Old Europe must indeed be in Old Europe.

Foxfyre showed that Nuclear Plants do not take as long to build as Old Europe and Cyclops say. In the meantime, the French are far ahead of us.

Note:


Nuclear Power in France
(May 2009)

France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.


In 2007 French electricity generation was 570 billion kWh gross, and consumption was about 447 billion kWh - 6800 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-80 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr, to Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK. Imports are relatively trivial.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity (net), 78% of the total generated there. Total generating capacity is 116 GWe, including 25 GWe hydro and 26 GWe fossil fuel.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimising imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

*****************

The left wing which pleads for energy independence, low cost electricity and no pollution, totally ignores France's experience.

Why?

The time frame needed for formalities, planning and building of a new nuclear power generation plant is in the range of 15 to 30 years in the western democracies.
(We here in Germany would be at more in the 30 years frame - Italy started plans in 2008 and hope to start commercial service by 2020, with French nuclear power plants ..... )

Google it. It's easy to find. McCain's proposal was to bring 45 new nuclear power plants online by 2030, with the ultimate goal of building 100 new nuclear plants. He didn't specify how long he thought that would take, though.

He also cited France as a model for America.

I don't care enough whether he said it or not to google it. If you think it is a really important point, then you post the links. He isn't the President. He has no power to accomplish it. But if that's the way he put it, it certainly would be a reasonable goal.

Are you saying that new nuclear power plants could replace the oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within five to six years? Really?

Maybe you should tell okie that. He seems convinced that is not the case.

He seems to think that 80,000MWs isn't enough to replace the oil from those places that don't like us very much.
3Mile Island reactor - 802mws.. x 100 is 80,200mws
Increase in wind generation 2007-2008 - 8,352 mws x 10 years = 83,352MWs

I have the same question about nuclear power plants replacing the oil from the MIddle East and Venezuela.