PDA

View Full Version : No Cost Stimulus Act?



dbroncos78087
03-12-2009, 12:17 AM
Can someone enlighten me to what this is other than just leasing out the Off Shore Oil and drilling in ANWR.

I found this video (http://blog.thehill.com/2009/03/11/gop-wants-stimulus-at-no-cost/) and i found this description (http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2336.cfm) but it seems to me like it is just a way to push off shore drilling and stopping us from getting off of oil and other non renewable resources for as long as possible.

Cubsrule
03-12-2009, 12:38 AM
Can someone enlighten me to what this is other than just leasing out the Off Shore Oil and drilling in ANWR.

I found this video (http://blog.thehill.com/2009/03/11/gop-wants-stimulus-at-no-cost/) and i found this description (http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2336.cfm) but it seems to me like it is just a way to push off shore drilling and stopping us from getting off of oil and other non renewable resources for as long as possible.

As far as I understand it the GOP still wants us off foreign oil, but finding renewable resources for energy will take a while. Their solution allows us to live off of our own reserves while taking power away from OPEC and in the meantime find renewable energy. That's how I take it, but then again I'm not sure.

dbroncos78087
03-12-2009, 02:55 PM
As far as I understand it the GOP still wants us off foreign oil, but finding renewable resources for energy will take a while. Their solution allows us to live off of our own reserves while taking power away from OPEC and in the meantime find renewable energy. That's how I take it, but then again I'm not sure.

Yea that makes sense, wanting to be off foreign oil but i would rather us use the motivation from OPEC driving up prices to find another energy that we can use efficiently instead of just saying "we cant find another source". I dont know what parts of the OCS is safe and what isnt to drill but i dont want to drill in ANWR unless it is completely necessary. I dont think this will provide stimulation to the economy is the problem i have with it.

ari1013
03-12-2009, 07:28 PM
As far as I understand it the GOP still wants us off foreign oil, but finding renewable resources for energy will take a while. Their solution allows us to live off of our own reserves while taking power away from OPEC and in the meantime find renewable energy. That's how I take it, but then again I'm not sure.
While oil is this cheap, it doesn't make any sense to invest in the infrastructure (that would take 10 years to set in place) for drilling in ANWR or in the ocean. What we should be doing over those 10 years instead is focus on building a few more nuclear facilities and experimenting with oil shale, solar, wind, and hydrogen.

Cubsrule
03-13-2009, 12:08 AM
While oil is this cheap, it doesn't make any sense to invest in the infrastructure (that would take 10 years to set in place) for drilling in ANWR or in the ocean. What we should be doing over those 10 years instead is focus on building a few more nuclear facilities and experimenting with oil shale, solar, wind, and hydrogen.

I don't think the President is in line with the nuclear facilities, I mean technically we can focus on all of them.

ari1013
03-13-2009, 12:16 AM
I don't think the President is in line with the nuclear facilities, I mean technically we can focus on all of them.
Has he ruled them out? That would be pretty stupid if he has. Granted we don't really have a good way to dispose of the nuclear waste, but I imagine that the waste produced by one nuclear facility would be a lot less destructive to the environment than the 3-4 coal plants it replaces.

I wouldn't go overboard with them, but in places like Cali that face energy shortages all the time, another nuclear plant could go a long way.

Cubsrule
03-13-2009, 12:34 AM
Has he ruled them out? That would be pretty stupid if he has. Granted we don't really have a good way to dispose of the nuclear waste, but I imagine that the waste produced by one nuclear facility would be a lot less destructive to the environment than the 3-4 coal plants it replaces.

I wouldn't go overboard with them, but in places like Cali that face energy shortages all the time, another nuclear plant could go a long way.

I'm not sure, I know it was something McCain was pushing, but I never really heard about it from Obama. As far as the waste goes, I was really hoping Yucca Mountain would eventually happen because it meant jobs and millions of dollars in federal money for state. Dumb *** Harry made sure it never happened :mad:

cabernetluver
03-13-2009, 11:31 AM
I'm not sure, I know it was something McCain was pushing, but I never really heard about it from Obama. As far as the waste goes, I was really hoping Yucca Mountain would eventually happen because it meant jobs and millions of dollars in federal money for state. Dumb *** Harry made sure it never happened :mad:

I am not sure if your love of the Yucca site is universally shared by your fellow citizens of Nevada. I had heard a lot of Republicans and Democrats fight that one each time I came to your state. I am not saying that I know what the general feelings were, just that it did not cut Republican/Democrat, or even Liberal/Conservative inside Nevada.

Cubsrule
03-13-2009, 02:07 PM
I am not sure if your love of the Yucca site is universally shared by your fellow citizens of Nevada. I had heard a lot of Republicans and Democrats fight that one each time I came to your state. I am not saying that I know what the general feelings were, just that it did not cut Republican/Democrat, or even Liberal/Conservative inside Nevada.

Basically because their uninformed, people were/are scared of a spill in the transportation of it more than anything, something that was pushed by Reid. Still, I am for it because it means millions of dollars in federal money and jobs for the state, which could go towards education or the deficit, tons of things could be helped by it.

Cubsrule
03-13-2009, 02:28 PM
NIXING NUKE POWER
OBAMA AIDE'S ANTI-SCIENCE DECISION
By Josh Gilder

WHEN it comes to nuclear energy, settled science appears to count for little with the new Obama administration. This week, ostensibly "pro-nuclear" Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced the administration's decision to kill the nuclear-waste-storage site at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert.

Chu said we need to take a "fresh look" and that "we can do a better job." Good luck. The Yucca site had been studied for more than 20 years, undergoing $9.5 billion of tests by some 2,500 of the nation's leading scientists.

They gave the Yucca project a green light, for obvious reasons. Yucca Mountain is in an isolated desert region with ideal meteorological conditions for a nuclear-storage project. If we can't dispose of our nuclear waste there, we can't dispose of it anywhere, and we will never be able to build a new nuclear-power plant in America again.

So much hysteria has been generated on the subject of nuclear waste and radiation in general that it's worth taking a moment to put Yucca's supposed risks into perspective.

Those billions of dollars of studies determined that 10,000 years from now the greatest annual radiation dose near Yucca Mountain as a result of deteriorating storage canisters would be 0.24 millirem. In a million years, it might get up to .9 millirem. Yet normal cosmic radiation delivers a dose of 26 millirems a year at sea level. If you moved from Manhattan to Denver, you'd be about doubling that.

In other words, the residents of Denver (who, except when the Broncos win the Super Bowl, have never been known to sport two heads) are all getting more than 52 times the dosage of radiation that inhabitants of the Armagosa desert valley (which lies below Yucca) might get a million years from now.

Transportation isn't a problem, either. As Ted Rockwell (who helped build the first nuclear sub and commercial nuclear power plant) once said to me, you'd have to use a shaped charge to blow a hole in the canisters they ship the waste in, then stand next to it taking no precautions, for there to be any significant danger.

Energy Secretary Chu - a Nobel Prize winner and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab - must know that Yucca is safe. What he may not understand is that his success or failure as energy secretary will be largely determined by his ability to find adequate energy sources for our economy's future growth - and he just appears to have cut off his one viable option.

There is plenty of carbon-based energy lying around, of course. But these sources are anathema to the global-warming worriers, and the Obama administration intends to impose a massive tax on their production and use.

And, though we hear endlessly about "alternative" or "green" energy, its boosters never mention that, despite massive subsidies, solar and wind today provide about one half of 1 percent of our nation's energy consumption. You could cover the nation over with windmills and solar panels (and then listen to the enviros scream about the destruction of habitat that entails) and still barely make a dent in our energy needs. Meanwhile, we are dismantling our dams and lessening our hydroelectric capacity.

Where are we going to get the power, all from biofuels? Every plausible national energy policy includes building many more nuclear plants.

Recycling nuclear waste is part of the solution, but we'll still need Yucca to store the waste byproducts. In the meantime, all that nuclear waste is sitting around in shallow pools or in above-ground containers next to nuclear-power plants in some of the most populated locations in the United States.

Chu said in congressional testimony that this is perfectly safe for now, and he's probably right. But it does beg the question why a theoretical danger a million years in the future - way out in the desert near where we once tested nuclear bombs - should be allowed to imperil our nation's energy future.

Is ignoring nuclear science what President Obama really meant by his inaugural pledge, "We will restore science to its rightful place"?

CubsGirl
03-13-2009, 02:30 PM
^Please don't forget to post sources, or else I have to delete the post.

Cubsrule
03-13-2009, 02:33 PM
^Please don't forget to post sources, or else I have to delete the post.

NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03132009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/nixing_nuke_power_159278.htm)

:no:

CubsGirl
03-13-2009, 02:34 PM
NY Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03132009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/nixing_nuke_power_159278.htm)

:no:
:up:

edit - I've noticed the more tired/braindead I get, the more I tend to communicate in smileys

Cubsrule
03-13-2009, 02:36 PM
:up:

edit - I've noticed the more tired/braindead I get, the more I tend to communicate in smileys

:dance2:

Lol