Santorum Drops Out - Page 14

Vash02 · 2012-04-25, 02:21 PM

In any case it doesent matter if there is evidence of man made global warming (which there is) or not. The responsible thing to do for the future is for the economy to get off oil and its better to do it early rather than too late.

Ah yes, the famous hockey stick graph from Micheal Mann. That guy its totally credible

Yes, further research by different institutions replicated the graph.

Sirisian · 2012-04-25, 03:46 PM

To be fair nuclear has always been hard to get. There's two being built at the moment and they took a while to get okayed. The perceived risk is rather huge. (I'm a huge proponent of nuclear though, but it's odd how research has slowed in that area).

About the "EPA cracking down on coal power" it's overstated. From what I've read it's affecting plants that were created 30+ years ago. Ones that are inefficient.[Source]

(Regarding offshore drilling, keystone pipeline, and drilling on public lands I have no opinion on. They seem like rather complex subjects). Though Obama has been pretty strict about the use of public lands for mining. (Mining around the Grand Canyon for instance).

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-25, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

To be fair nuclear has always been hard to get. There's two being built at the moment and they took a while to get okayed. The perceived risk is rather huge. (I'm a huge proponent of nuclear though, but it's odd how research has slowed in that area).

About the "EPA cracking down on coal power" it's overstated. From what I've read it's affecting plants that were created 30+ years ago. Ones that are inefficient.[Source]

(Regarding offshore drilling, keystone pipeline, and drilling on public lands I have no opinion on. They seem like rather complex subjects). Though Obama has been pretty strict about the use of public lands for mining. (Mining around the Grand Canyon for instance).

I agree, big fan of nuclear power. I read something a while ago about thorium? I think that's right but it was a competing technology with uranium and we chose uranium because we could use it to develop weapons (in BOOMING GOD VOICE) OF MASS DESTRUCTION! hehe

Goku · 2012-04-25, 04:29 PM

I just about fell out of my chair when I learned about thorium a couple years ago. Just due to how much energy more can be harnessed verse uranium. If I'm not mistaken there wasn't nearly as big of a issue concerning the radioactive waste either.

Sirisian · 2012-04-26, 04:44 AM

Interesting policy for republicans. Their cuts seem to be targeted at people with low political control at the moment. Case in point. Poor people have really bad lobbyists.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 05:49 AM

Some Republicans maybe, but Ron Paul wouldn't do that. His changes would eclipse that.

Figment · 2012-04-26, 11:38 AM

Regarding nuclear power, I'm not against it as long as the waste is stored responsibly and properly (extremely low chance of leaking and getting into groundwater etc) and the plants are built in safe locations.

I got rather annoyed with the people that used the tsunami in Japan (in the ring of fire zone) as a motivation to not built a plant in a very geologically stable area and close down any others. Germany is ending its nuclear power and as a consequence the brown coal plants will have to grow in output.

Not sure if you know what brown coal does to the environment, but this is what a mine looks like:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hHI8Ch9Q0x...chweiler+2.JPG

The mines are huge and keep expanding horizontally (threatening the existence of a lot of villages and nature) and a lot of land is basically destroyed, while the pollution from these coal plants is pretty heavy.

I'd prefer the risks associated with atomic power, as long as the plants aren't built and maintained by Russians.

Baneblade · 2012-04-26, 08:42 PM

No, I'm just off my game lately.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-27, 07:45 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-27, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Every time there is a war is the middle east oil price worldwide goes up. The idea that the US would initiate a conflict in that region "for oil" is completely retarded.

Not really, if the regimes there threaten to stop delivering altogether for instance, that's even worse than expensive oil.

It is however true that stability in the middle east has been less important than human rights to the US.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-27, 08:21 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-27, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ya really figmento. If all we cared about was oil we'd buddy up to those regimes and stay out of their business, its a lot easier, cheaper, and faster than a war which will only make prices higher in the short term and normal at best.

You did... the Shah of Persia (pre-Iran), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (royal family), Egypt (Mubarak), Qatar, Yemen, Bahrein... Even Saddam...

That last one backfired a bit. And the local populace isn't always too happy with the US supporting the local despots.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-27, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

You did... the Shah of Persia (pre-Iran), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (royal family), Egypt (Mubarak), Qatar, Yemen, Bahrein... Even Saddam...

That last one backfired a bit. And the local populace isn't always too happy with the US supporting the local despots.

Most of them we will buddy up to unless they do something supremely stupid like Iran hostage crisis.

However, US doesn't even get the majority of its oil from the middle east. Mostly from America2(those crazy Canucks) and that other place America subsidizes Mexico.

Vash02 · 2012-04-27, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ya really figmento. If all we cared about was oil we'd buddy up to those regimes and stay out of their business, its a lot easier, cheaper, and faster than a war which will only make prices higher in the short term and normal at best.

That's basically what has been happening for the last 50-60 years. We only bombed Libya because the people were uprising.

HalfManHalfGod · 2012-04-27, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Vash02

That's basically what has been happening for the last 50-60 years. We only bombed Libya because the people were uprising.

US doesn't receive any oil from Libya. Only EU countries do.