RNC Convention

[wolfcamp]

Tonight Laura Bush endorsed and promoted John McCain as the reform candidate.

What would he be reforming? Um... her husband's policies.

I thought that was odd.

[12voltman59]

I really do try to give Republicans a break--but it just seems that in so many ways--they do have this air of unreality about them----you would think from the tributes to Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush it was 1980 all over again--one is dead and the other hasn't been president in almost two decades and is an old man---they hardly mentioned the last eight years of Bush 43---and to spin Sarah Palin as has having such an incredibly deep well of experience--that just stretches the bounds of credibility to no end---

I do have to hand it to them though----they are so good at the spin--at least among the choir---they could bring up a red car on the stage and sell it to the choir that the car is actually black and not red and everyone in five seconds would say--"the car is black---the car is black!"

They really do put into practice the notion that if your spin something or tell the big lie, big enough, many many times--it becomes truth!!

It is also hard to support a party that ostensibly stands for "American freedoms" when they have enacted party planks that strive to take away the civil and constitutional rights of about 75 percent of the American populace--namely with two things--their plank that vows to make abortions totally unavailable for any reason and to strive to deprive "gays" of any rights too!

[vittoria]

whoa there volty!!

seems you got a bit happy there!! LOL!

but seriously, the RNC is a hoot. especially since the man behind the curtain couldnt even show up in person for the event...

check out www.crooksandliars.com for even more hilarity ( this is not an ad, but a fkkn funny site )

[12voltman59]

Sorry for the extra entries---the comp was doing odd things---I thought that I had lost the post and it wound up being posted four times!!

I know the song they need to play at the Republican convention---"Let's do the time warp again!!!!" (from Rocky Horror)

A bit of a stretch for the folks there I am sure--but they do have their share of camp at this convention anyway!

[vittoria]

I really do try to give Republicans a break--but it just seems that in so many ways--they do have this air of unreality about them----you would think from the tributes to Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush it was 1980 all over again--one is dead and the other hasn't been president in over almost two decades and is an old man---they hardly mentioned the last eight years of Bush 43---and to spin Sarah Palin as has having such an incredibly deep well of experience--that just stretches the bounds of credibility to no end---

I do have to hand it to them though----they are so good at the spin--at least among the choir---they could bring up a red car on the stage and sell it to the choir that the car is actually black and not red and everyone in five seconds would say--"the car is black---the car is black!"

They really do put into practice the notion that if your spin something or tell the big lie, big enough, many many times--it becomes truth!!

It is also hard to support a party that ostensibly stands for "American freedoms" when they have enacted party planks that strive to take away the civil and constitution rights of about 75 percent of the American populace--namely with two things--their plank that vows to make abortions totally unavailable for any reason and to strive to deprive "gays" of any rights too!

the keys to "spin" are these:

1) the more you spin it the fluffier it gets like cotton candy

2) the more you spin around in circles the dizzier you get and you lose your bearings and you begin to grab at ANYTHING to just stand up straight, and THATS only if you dont puke everywhere

apply those two keys to the term "spin" in the political format, and it makes perfect albeit radically Orwellian sense!
:2cents: and change!!

[lsd51]

I like your post, but I gotta ask one thing: Why do you try to give the republicans a break? They certainly believe the old adage "Never give a sucker an even break".

[AFTER9]

I,m just ignoring the whole thing. Some of it is just scary how greedy and short sighted some of them are.
This Drill Now Drill Everywhere rhetoric along with multiple new nuclear facilities just scares the shit out of me.
They do have some intelligent people hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we'll make some tough decisions wisely with a consideration for future generations.

[Sourdough]

Why should we not drill here drill now? We have enough oil here to run us for the next 30 years, without buying it from foreign countries and sponsoring the people that hate us. The drilling sites in ANWR are not the pretty scenes you see on TV or in videos. The drilling site is nothing but mud flats. The only thing living there is mosquitos. No polar Bears, No Caribou, No Moose, Nothing. I know I've been there. Drilling now would give us energy till we can develop alternate energy sources, such as nuclear. The new technology is far better than what was being used at Three Mile Island and Chernoble. Look at Turkey Point in Florida no problems there. France gets 3/4 of all it's energy from Nuclear, why can't we?

[hudson9]

Why should we not drill here now? Because
1) the time it takes to bring new drilling online will means it will not affect prices for 5 - 10 years.
2) there is no practical, legal way to "keep" the oil only to ourselves -- it will enter the global supply markets
3) even "mud flats" can be delicate and vital environmental areas
4) increased oil supplies means increased carbon emissions and even greater contributions to global warming & climate change
5) we don't NEED 30 years to develop alternate technologies -- there are viable technologies available now, including wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels (from grasses, not corn), and yes even efficiency/conservation -- we just need to implement them

Why SHOULD we drill now?
1) To increase the profits of Exxon-Mobil, Haliburton, and the rest of Dick Cheney's friends even beyond the obscene amounts they already are (while we cut their taxes even more as well...)
:2cents:

[12voltman59]

I agree with the "no drilling" argument----doing such will really do nothing and it is only a bandaid situation at best---we need to transform to energy sources that have a long term viablity---as longtime oilman T. Boone Pickens says in the ads for his plan--"we can't drilll our selves out of this prediciment!"

Pickens' plan to switch the fuel for our cars and trucks from gas and diesel to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) seems like a good stop gap measure while the technology develops so that we can power cans from hydrogen, fuel cells, electric or whatever.

We have known for 50 years that we will be running out of oil at some point--forget the negative environmental dangers since that doesn't seem to concern most people----from a purely economic standpoint---it is a fool's game to invest big time dollars in a technology that is actually a "dead man walking!"

For now--let's follow T. Boone Pickens' stop gap energy plan.

http://www.pickensplan.com/?c=Google&a=Pickens-Keywords&k=t+boone+pickens+plan

As far as oil from Alaska is concerned---when it first started--the oil was supposed to go only to America but that law got overturned-there is no reason to think that all of the new ANWR oil would be used for our needs and according to most oil industry experts---the increased production would be too little, too late and would not improve our situation at all.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002245699_export17m.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12993250/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/23/arctic-drilling-wouldnt-cool-high-oil-prices.html

[wolfcamp]

Why should we not drill here drill now? We have enough oil here to run us for the next 30 years, without buying it from foreign countries and sponsoring the people that hate us. The drilling sites in ANWR are not the pretty scenes you see on TV or in videos. The drilling site is nothing but mud flats. The only thing living there is mosquitos. No polar Bears, No Caribou, No Moose, Nothing. I know I've been there. Drilling now would give us energy till we can develop alternate energy sources, such as nuclear. The new technology is far better than what was being used at Three Mile Island and Chernoble. Look at Turkey Point in Florida no problems there. France gets 3/4 of all it's energy from Nuclear, why can't we?

Here's one reason. This is a picture of umimpeaded drilling in my home state of Wyoming. This is the Jonah Field in the upper Green River basin.

http://www.voiceforthewild.org/blm/Jonah_field/images/jonah.jpg

They are having ecological problems like water pollution and dangerous levels of ozone in what was once the sleepy, little, mountain town of Pinedale. They are looking at the extinction, or migration out of the area, of several native animal species. The problem is that the area is so far gone that the state is considering it a write off with no hope of mitigation. Now there is a debate about extending drilling further into the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. The ranchers and outfitters are fighting it. But of course, nobody lives up there. It's just elk and grizzly bears.

About ANWR:
The high projection is that ANWR holds somewhere around 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil. It could be lower, but probably not higher. The U.S. uses about 20 million bbls a day, or roughly 7 billion bbls a year. That works out to be about 2 years supply from ANWR.

USGS Fact Sheet (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm)

Additionally, the oil would have to come through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to the loading station at Valdez. Not all the oil comes to refineries in the U.S. Some is shipped all over the world. The pipeline would have to be shared with existing North Slope production. The capacity of TAPS is about 2.1 million bbls per day. North Slope production currently uses about half that, leaving ANWR oil production bottlenecked at a little over a million bbls per day. The extra inventory would be factored into global market prices, not U.S. prices, and it would barely make a dent. Don't believe any politician that says drilling will make us independent of foreign oil. That will never happen, even if you include new drilling on the east, west, and gulf coasts.

Drilling ANWR would give jobs to a few Alaskan roughnecks, but most of the workers probably would be displaced Texans and Oklahomans.

I think the pressure will be such that we will eventually drill ANWR, but we will be giving up the last, pristine coastal area in North America. I think we should drill (not necessarily in ANWR), but each drilling site should be carefully evaluated.

I think nuclear is viable option, especially the new Generation 4 plants now being developed. I also think we need to develop, as quickly as possible, wind, solar, wave, geothermal, bio, and every other kind of energy we can think of. Last but certainly not least, CO2 needs to be dealt with.

[AFTER9]

Doesn't Nuclear still have some issues regarding the spent fuel and how to transport and or store it? I heard something about it going to Yucca Mt in Nevada but getting it there is problematic. To me that causes concern.

I'm actually for drilling where the technology has overcome the original enviromental obstacles. What I'm against is using it in a right wing political ploy (my example would be the talk radio station often on at work).

[darkeyes]

Nuclear is a viable option Wolfie but its not a safe viable option.. After9 is dead rite ther r issues bout storage transport an its long term safety.. we kno wot happened at Chernobyl an wont no repeat.. the main reason is cos we use nuclear fission in power stations an its that very process that makes it so bloody dangerous.. if an wen they can create viable cold fusion (the process that powers the sun) then mayb we can move ahead wiv a nuclear option cos the same concerns ova radioactivity an storage wudn then b brot inta play.. ther wudn b the huge waste problem.. an even then.. jus wot the unknown (if ne dangers) r will only transpire as..or if an wen we eva achieve it..

The Brit govt is tryin 2 move ahead an build sum new nuclear power stations at the costa God knos how many billions a pounds.. much betta those pounds wer spent on research an developin propa clean renewable energy solutons wich in the end havta b the way forward if we r 2 go ne wer near meetin the energy needs of our an furture generations..

[wolfcamp]

Doesn't Nuclear still have some issues regarding the spent fuel and how to transport and or store it? I heard something about it going to Yucca Mt in Nevada but getting it there is problematic. To me that causes concern.

I'm actually for drilling where the technology has overcome the original enviromental obstacles. What I'm against is using it in a right wing political ploy (my example would be the talk radio station often on at work).

Yes, it's true that we (the U.S.) still have storage issues. One reason for that is that the U.S. policy is to use a once through fuel cycle, which means the fuel is run through the reactor once, and then disposed of. The reason is to prevent weapons grade fuel production. It's a holdover policy from the cold war. Reprocessing spend fuel creates isotopes that could be used for nuclear weapons. But there are reactor technologies that reuse the spent fuel, reducing the final radioactive waste to almost nothing, and storage becomes more manageable.

The reason I like nuclear power is that it's the only power source that is constant, reliable, scalable, and carbon neutral. The demand for energy is huge and growing. The numbers are staggering and almost incomprehensible. Keep in mind that there is a downside to every energy source that we use.

The U.S is favoring a new 4th generation reactor called a Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). It can produce hydrogen which is very good if we are to move to a hydrogen based economy. It can also be used to process heat for coal gasification. And yes, it also produces electricity. And it can also burn recycled fuel.

The Chernobyl reactor was was primitive and very unstable. The Soviets were building those reactors as quickly and cheaply as possible without any regard for safety. That disaster was almost inevitable.

[vittoria]

Humans have the same percentage of water as the earth.

The planet breathes.

Cut the trees down and not only does the planet stop breathing but so do we. Cut out those little tree like looking things in our lungs and we die too.

We have blood.

Drain our blood, our energy transport, and we die.

Same with the earth.

As the pictures show, those are the effects of drilling. The surrounding terrain withers and dies. In desert places, its not noticed because, well, its desert anyway. If they drill under water, we STILL dont notice the after effects.

Interesting how connected we are to the planet we take for granted.

[vittoria]

Yes, it's true that we (the U.S.) still have storage issues. One reason for that is that the U.S. policy is to use a once through fuel cycle, which means the fuel is run through the reactor once, and then disposed of. The reason is to prevent weapons grade fuel production. It's a holdover policy from the cold war. Reprocessing spend fuel creates isotopes that could be used for nuclear weapons. But there are reactor technologies that reuse the spent fuel, reducing the final radioactive waste to almost nothing, and storage becomes more manageable.

The reason I like nuclear power is that it's the only power source that is constant, reliable, scalable, and carbon neutral. The demand for energy is huge and growing. The numbers are staggering and almost incomprehensible. Keep in mind that there is a downside to every energy source that we use.

The U.S is favoring a new 4th generation reactor called a Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). It can produce hydrogen which is very good if we are to move to a hydrogen based economy. It can also be used to process heat for coal gasification. And yes, it also produces electricity. And it can also burn recycled fuel.

The Chernobyl reactor was was primitive and very unstable. The Soviets were building those reactors as quickly and cheaply as possible without any regard for safety. That disaster was almost inevitable.

I really dont miss the days of the tv news and other sources asking what to do with nuclear waste. I also dont miss the strange threats of nuclear reactors exploding either.

Hydrogen. Water. UV rays ("there is more than one spectrum of light")

[wolfcamp]

I really dont miss the days of the tv news and other sources asking what to do with nuclear waste. I also dont miss the strange threats of nuclear reactors exploding either.

Hydrogen. Water. UV rays ("there is more than one spectrum of light")


Oil will become more scarce and therefore more expensive. Natural gas is abundant but hard to get from the sources to the places where it's needed. Coal is abundant, for now, but is the dirtiest fossil fuel we currently use. All three contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans. We can sequester carbon, but that will double the price of the associated fossil fuels, which are already almost more expensive than we can bare. I've heard it said that carbon sequestration would be the biggest industry on earth, except for energy production itself.

Wind and solar are wonderful sources of clean energy, but they aren't consistent over the course of a day or week. We don't have the technology to store the energy and then budget it evenly over time. Hydrogen doesn't exist freely by itself. It takes energy to break it apart from water, the most likely source. That energy has to come from somewhere. Ocean wave energy has potential, but only along the coastal areas and in limited amounts. Geothermal only works where the geology is right. Hydro power is already maxed out.

All the while the demand for energy keeps going up. U.S. demand is increasing and we are competing with countries who are coming online like China and India.

So, where are we going to get the energy? We have to look at this realistically.