• 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
Ethereal

Ethereal

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
8,211
Reaction score
4,179
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Assuming the government should subsidize energy costs, the government should invest primarily in:

a. Solar.
b. Wind.
c. Geothermal.
d. Nuclear.
e. Oil.
f. Coal.
g. Hydroelectric.
h. Other.

---

I say nuclear energy. My reasons:

1. It could provide for the vast majority of our infrastructural energy needs.
2. We could export nuclear energy to Mexico and Canada.
3. It's very efficient.
4. It's safe.
5. It produces relatively little waste.
6. It's cost-effective (in the long term).
7. There's no compelling argument against it.

Even France understands:

In 2004, France consumed 11.2 quadrillion Btu of total energy. Nuclear energy was the largest share, representing 39 percent, followed by oil (36 percent), natural gas (16 percent) and hydroelectricity (5 percent). France is the second-largest producer of nuclear power in the world, after the United States, however, nuclear energy is a much larger share of France’s total energy consumption than the United States (8 percent in 2004).

France: Energy profile | Spero News
Click to expand...

IF the government insists upon investing in energy then why don't they invest in nuclear power? I think it has something to do with the radical, leftwing, environmentalist types that insist on turning every issue into an overly emotional cry-fest, ignoring the facts and distorting the ones they can't ignore.

Let's be practical America...nuclear energy is good stuff.
 
To an extent, all of them. There is a time and a place for all those things.
 
Ethereal said:
Excellent answer!

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. And I think this is the first time in quite awhile we have agreed on something. Wonder if that means we are both wrong.
 
I picked solar, but of course I want wind and geothermal in the mix.

Homes in the suburbs and boondocks can practically go off the grid if the govt would better incentivize the upfront costs of solar and wind.

The main reason I say no to nuclear is because I wouldn't want to live near it or the disposal sites.
 
Joe1991 said:
I picked solar, but of course I want wind and geothermal in the mix.

Homes in the suburbs and boondocks can practically go off the grid if the govt would better incentivize the upfront costs of solar and wind.

The main reason I say no to nuclear is because I wouldn't want to live near it or the disposal sites.
Click to expand...

I live in Illinois. There is a nuclear facility relatively near to my home. It has posed absolutely no problems whatsoever and doesn't show any signs that it will.

Also, there is no reason why you'd HAVE to live near a nuclear power plant or a disposal site...no reason at all. I mean, how close are we talking here? One mile? Ten miles? Fifty miles? Why that far? What's the worry?
 
Joe1991 said:
I picked solar, but of course I want wind and geothermal in the mix.

Homes in the suburbs and boondocks can practically go off the grid if the govt would better incentivize the upfront costs of solar and wind.
Click to expand...

On a large scale, none of these things are even remotely practical or efficient.
 
Ethereal said:
I mean, how close are we talking here? One mile? Ten miles? Fifty miles? Why that far? What's the worry?
Click to expand...

Murphy's law.
Also the 150 or so storage sites are excellent targets for terrorism.

Ethereal said:
On a large scale, none of these things are even remotely practical or efficient.
Click to expand...

Sez you.
In west Texas there building ****loads of solar and windfarms.
 
There should be an, "all of the above", option.
 
Joe1991 said:
Murphy's law.
Click to expand...

If you're that scared of nuclear power then you should just live in your basement. People have a better chance of dying in a car-crash than being harmed by a nuclear power plant.

Also the 150 or so storage sites are excellent targets for terrorism.
Click to expand...

150 sites? Source please.

Why should a nuclear waste facility be an excellent target for terrorists? Simply isolate them and guard them...not that hard to do.

Why does it even matter? Navy battleships are also an excellent target for terrorists. Should we get rid of battleships, or stop building more? Maybe we could let the terrorists decide our energy policy for us? That seems like the logical conclusion of your argument.

Sez you.
Click to expand...

Solar and wind energy account for a measly portion of America's overall energy consumption. [1] Solar and wind energy suffer from engineering and distribution problems that render them incapable of operating efficiently on a large scale. That's a fact.

[1] - Electric Power Annual - Summary Statistics for the United States

In west Texas there building ****loads of solar and windfarms.
Click to expand...

How much energy will this new investment produce? Please provide a credible link.
 
apdst said:
There should be an, "all of the above", option.
Click to expand...

You have to pick one.

I just want people choose what they feel is the most viable energy investment.
 
RightinNYC said:
Nuclear for sure.

It's by far the most efficient and cost-effective.
Click to expand...


Richard Littlemore | Nuclear Energy: Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective


Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh have penned a new report on nuclear energy as a fossil fuel option, concluding that nuclear is still dangerous and complicated, not particularly reliable, creates a pollution problem that lasts for many millennia and is therefore a waste of money that could be spent more productively on renewable energy.

Perhaps most devastating to the free market fans, Lovins and Sheikh note that "nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both."

"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."
Click to expand...
 
Joe1991 said:
Richard Littlemore | Nuclear Energy: Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective
Click to expand...

This is a blog by some guy that few know or care about...

"Richard spent 20 years in daily newspapers (the Ottawa Citizen, the Winnipeg Tribune, the Vancouver Sun), before turning his hand in 1995 to freelance journalism and public affairs. He wrote the David Suzuki Foundation’s first public information package on climate change in 1996, was vice-chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Air Quality Committee in 1996 and 1997 and sat as a delegate to the Canadian government's (failed) Kyoto Implementation Process from 1997 to 1999."

Don't see anything that qualifys him in the group above.

"In addition to his DeSmog endeavours, Richard is a regular speech writer for many business and academic leaders and is a senior counsellor and the lead writer at James Hoggan and Associates.

OK speech wrtitter? nothing that qualifies him here.

"Most importantly, he is a parent to three teenage boys who, like all children of their generation, deserve to inherit a world uncompromised by climate change."

Thats a pretty bold statement considering climate change has been going on ohhh... since before life existed on the planet?

"Richard Littlemore has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change.

OK so the man is a green nutbag trained by manbearpig himself.

Great source for evidence against nuclear power you got here. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
You have to pick one.

I just want people choose what they feel is the most viable energy investment.
Click to expand...

My point, is that none of them are viable, on it's own. If we had an energy policy that utilizes all of the energy producing methods that currently exist, we could tell OPEC to drink their oil for the next several hundred years. Not to mention all the energy jobs that would be created. If there were a broader focus then a stand alone energy source would have a higher probability of being born out of the combined technologies. If we focus only on one, or two, then we'll be using those one, or two forever, getting pissed off because the technology only goes so far.
 
Hydro and geothermal are excellent sources of power, but they require certain geographic conditions so you can't build them everywhere. Wind and Solar can be built in many more geographic conditions, but don't have a consistent power output. Nuclear can be built anywhere but requires uranium for fuel, as well overhead in dealing with disposal. Coal and oil have nasty pollution and oil is far more useful in others areas.

Overall the goal of energy policy should shift to creating the cleanest energy source with low recurring costs and as few foreign dependencies as possible.
I see this best accomplished by using a mix of energy sources. Solar is optimal for the bulk of peak energy uses but obviously can't operate at night without massive energy storage capability. Nuclear is useful for its reliability and that we can get its fuel from Canada and Australia instead of less friendly countries. Wind, hydro electric and geothermal are supplementary, but you might as well build them when practical.
 
I am not convinced that nuclear, all things considered, is much more cost effective than wind. Estimates I remember put it at around 8-9 cents/kWh. Onshore wind is about 6-9 cents/kWh assuming a load factor of around 25%. Main problem with onshore wind is most of the best sites are far away from the population centers, increasing connection costs. Offshore wind solves that problem, but is more expensive per kWh, even with higher load factors, although right now a limited supply chain inflates offshore costs in the US significantly.

No renewable sources can compete with either gas or coal at current fuel prices without factoring in carbon cost. When you do factor carbon cost coal gets quite expensive, leaving gas. Gas will overtake coal as the number one source of electricity in the US by 2020/25. However gas prices are volatile for political reasons.

As for the others, solar is still experimental and hydro and geothermal are limited, but should definetly be built where possible.

Seeing how I only got one vote, I went for wind.
 
apdst said:
My point, is that none of them are viable, on it's own. If we had an energy policy that utilizes all of the energy producing methods that currently exist, we could tell OPEC to drink their oil for the next several hundred years. Not to mention all the energy jobs that would be created. If there were a broader focus then a stand alone energy source would have a higher probability of being born out of the combined technologies. If we focus only on one, or two, then we'll be using those one, or two forever, getting pissed off because the technology only goes so far.
Click to expand...

Can you please abide by the parameters of the thread and just choose one? I fully understand that no one source of energy is viable on its own. I'm simply wanting to know which specific one is currently the most viable investment.
 
The one way solution does not exist. It depends on the location and on the conditions if you can use geothermal energy or hydro power in an effective manner.

I think coal plants and nuclear plants cannot be substituted completely in the near future, but we should invest in all of the options you gave.
 
glücksritter said:
the one way solution does not exist. It depends on the location and on the conditions if you can use geothermal energy or hydro power in an effective manner.

I think coal plants and nuclear plants cannot be substituted completely in the near future, but we should invest in all of the options you gave.
Click to expand...

Just pick one!!! It's a hypothetical!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom