• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Energy Policy

The Government Should Invest In...


  • Total voters
    36
France has already demonstrated that none of this is true. You people are just irrationally obsessed with "going green" so you will stand in the way of anything, no matter how much sense it makes or much better it is than your crappy ideas.

Most French nuclear power stations are owned by EDF the national utility. Most private investors are wary about nuclear because it can be incredibly expensive to both build and dismantle, not to mention the 1000+ year waste liability which, realistically, only a government can handle. In that regard at least, the article is correct.

This is not to say there is no room for nuclear, there is room for a limited amount of all the mentioned options, I think wind is the most under used right now.
 
Most French nuclear power stations are owned by EDF the national utility. Most private investors are wary about nuclear because it can be incredibly expensive to both build and dismantle, not to mention the 1000+ year waste liability which, realistically, only a government can handle. In that regard at least, the article is correct.

I agree. Which is why I would support a Constitutional Amendment to allow for the US government to create and operate a nuclear infrastructure.

This is not to say there is no room for nuclear, there is room for a limited amount of all the mentioned options...

Yes, diversity is key to creating a sustainable energy policy, but I think nuclear is the most promising.

...I think wind is the most under used right now.

That's because it's not viable on a large scale, at all. Used selectively and intelligently wind power could be used to great benefit but there's no reason to believe it's the most under utilized.
 
If just one, I'd invest into nuclear. It's probably the one which can most widely be implemented. Things such as solar or wind are very regionally dependent.
 
Murphy's law.
Also the 150 or so storage sites are excellent targets for terrorism.



Sez you.
In west Texas there building ****loads of solar and windfarms.
It can only make that part of Texas less ugly....:2razz:
 
Nuclear, for sure. It is the only green alternative to coal.
All the others are too limited, they are at best supplements to coal.

When it comes to aerosol/particulate pollution, Coal is the bad guy.
Natural sources of particulates are sea salt, dust, volcanoes, and forest fires.
Natural means NOT man made, so the dust and fires are naturally started.

Coal combustion, if placed in that list, would fall between dust and volcanoes.
Of the human activities that cause aerosol/particulate polllutin, Coal is by far the worst. All the rest of human activities combined add up to only a bit more than coal, those being agriculture, iron/steel manufacturing, cement manufacturing, incineratin, and combution of oil...

source of this info is from a book about weather....The Handy Weather Answer Book, by Walter Lyons...
 
nothing.
Our people must do the investing, and of course, all of these things.
The goal must be to be energy independent.
 
That's because it's not viable on a large scale, at all. Used selectively and intelligently wind power could be used to great benefit but there's no reason to believe it's the most under utilized.

Wind energy accounts for 20% of Danish electricity and there are plans to increase this. Modern grids are capable of dealing with the fluctuations inherent in wind power so that should not be a problem. Also, if you build them offshore, as there are big plans to do, you increase the load factor from 25% to 40-50%. I think, by say 2030 it would be possible for 40-50% of electricity in a developed country to come from wind. I believe the current US target is 15% renewables by 2020 (practically all of this will come from wind, excluding hydro which is already built), I think this target is underwhelming for a country with the innovation and technology of the USA. That was the main reason I voted for wind.
 
Last edited:
Wind energy accounts for 20% of Danish electricity and there are plans to increase this. Modern grids are capable of dealing with the fluctuations inherent in wind power so that should not be a problem. Also, if you build them offshore, as there are big plans to do, you increase the load factor from 25% to 40-50%. I think, by say 2030 it would be possible for 40-50% of electricity in a developed country to come from wind. I believe the current US target is 15% renewables by 2020 (practically all of this will come from wind, excluding hydro which is already built), I think this target is underwhelming for a country with the innovation and technology of the USA. That was the main reason I voted for wind.
Not all is rosy in Denmark, or should I quote the old line, something is rotten in Denmark...read the link...

A Problem With Wind Power [AWEo_Org]
 
Let's be practical America...nuclear energy is good stuff.

So Ethereal, do you realize that the expand nuclear to the point where it can actually reduce dependency on coal and natural gas, we'll need to expand government debt to even higher levels?

Subsidies to produce a single nuclear plant often run into the billions. France's nuclear program is only where it is because the French Government committed billions of taxpayer Euros to finance it.

Are you okay with the expansion of government and debt?
 
France has already demonstrated that none of this is true. You people are just irrationally obsessed with "going green" so you will stand in the way of anything, no matter how much sense it makes or much better it is than your crappy ideas.

Can you disprove this?

"During the nuclear revival now allegedly underway, no new nuclear project on earth has been financed by private risk capital, chosen by an open decision process, nor bid into the world’s innumerable power markets and auctions. No old nuclear plant has been resold at a value consistent with a market case for building a new one."

Even in nuclear happy France, private capital doesn't get into the picture without massive government backing.
 
So Ethereal, do you realize that the expand nuclear to the point where it can actually reduce dependency on coal and natural gas, we'll need to expand government debt to even higher levels?

Subsidies to produce a single nuclear plant often run into the billions. France's nuclear program is only where it is because the French Government committed billions of taxpayer Euros to finance it.

Are you okay with the expansion of government and debt?

I would reduce funding for entitlement programs as well as decreasing our presence overseas in order to remain deficit neutral. As for the government expansion, so long as a Constitutional Amendment was passed I'd support it.
 
Can you disprove this?

"During the nuclear revival now allegedly underway, no new nuclear project on earth has been financed by private risk capital, chosen by an open decision process, nor bid into the world’s innumerable power markets and auctions. No old nuclear plant has been resold at a value consistent with a market case for building a new one."

Even in nuclear happy France, private capital doesn't get into the picture without massive government backing.

Like I said, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment which permitted the government to create and run a nuclear infrastructure.
 
I would reduce funding for entitlement programs as well as decreasing our presence overseas in order to remain deficit neutral. As for the government expansion, so long as a Constitutional Amendment was passed I'd support it.

At least you're consistent. Far too many people want nuclear without understanding the logistical financing behind it. I'm not sure I want to expand government to get that done.
 
Like I said, I'd support a Constitutional Amendment which permitted the government to create and run a nuclear infrastructure.

I pretty much 100 % disapprove of amending the constitution except for very big things.
 
At least you're consistent.

I'm that, if anything...

Far too many people want nuclear without understanding the logistical financing behind it. I'm not sure I want to expand government to get that done.

Not THIS government, no. I’m just imagining my ideal system of governance.
 
At least you're consistent. Far too many people want nuclear without understanding the logistical financing behind it. I'm not sure I want to expand government to get that done.

How much do you think it would actually cost?

I'm fairly sure it would pale in comparison to the amount we spend on other inane ****.
 
I pretty much 100 % disapprove of amending the constitution except for very big things.

I support Amending the Constitution whenever we the people want the Federal government to do something it’s not explicitly permitted to do so by the US Constitution e.g., creating and running a nuclear infrastructure.
 
I support Amending the Constitution whenever we the people want the Federal government to do something it’s not explicitly permitted to do so by the US Constitution e.g., creating and running a nuclear infrastructure.

Yeah, you are a libertarian, so I guessed that.;)
 
Other.

We should invest in a large device which consists of a shaft through the rotational axis of the sun, with arms attached to the various planets to turn it. Said shaft would then be attached to a very large generator.

:shock:
 
I voted other

Human sized hamster wheels in the classroom. Solve childhood obesity and energy problems at the same time.

If that doesn't work, nuke is the way to go. It works for the sun.
 
How much do you think it would actually cost?

Well let's do some math. On average it's about a billion per plant. To actually replace coal and gas as well as reduce carbon emissions, it's somewhere around a thousand nuclear plants. That's a trillion dollars.

I'm fairly sure it would pale in comparison to the amount we spend on other inane ****.

Over what time period?
 
I voted other

Human sized hamster wheels in the classroom. Solve childhood obesity and energy problems at the same time.

If that doesn't work, nuke is the way to go. It works for the sun.

Different type of nuke power though.
 
Back
Top Bottom