|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:46 pm Post subject: Obama wants Gore on his team |
 |
|
April 2, 2008
Obama wants Gore on his team
Posted: 08:30 PM ET
Obama said Wednesday he wants Gore for his administration.
(CNN) � Al Gore has a spot in a potential Barack Obama administration, the Illinois senator said Wednesday.
Asked at a campaign event if he'd consider Gore for his cabinet, Obama immediately said he would.
" I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [climate change] problem," Obama said.
Obama also said he talks with the former vice president on a "regular basis," and often consults with him on climate change issues.
Could Gore serve alongside Bill Clinton in an Obama administration? Last November, the Illinois senator said he'd offer the former president a job "in a second."
"There are few more talented people [than Clinton]," Obama said then.
ALGORE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great.
Does this mean we're going to get an Environment Czar?
I hope not.
Gore as head of the EPA would be a vast improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obama discussed gas prices on the Ed Schultz show.
@ Obama fans; Here is the complete interview by Schultz with Obama. It's around 10 minutes. He talks about fixing/dealing with NCLB, the housing/credit crises, and the NCAA Final Four.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/4wvjbt
Mods: This is the last time I'll post this link. 2 posts are enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer's OP wrote: |
" I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [climate change] problem," Obama said.
|
It's totally unpersuasive. Gore is correct about the problem but wrong about the solution. McCain is right about the problem (he agrees with Gore) and right about the solution. Anything other than a McCain government would be counterproductive re the environment and energy policy unless Obama and Gore were to suddenly dispense with their totally unevidenced skepticism towards nuclear energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Adventurer's OP wrote: |
" I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [climate change] problem," Obama said.
|
It's totally unpersuasive. Gore is correct about the problem but wrong about the solution. McCain is right about the problem (he agrees with Gore) and right about the solution. Anything other than a McCain government would be counterproductive re the environment and energy policy unless Obama and Gore were to suddenly dispense with their totally unevidenced skepticism towards nuclear energy. |
The thing with nuclear power is the "not in my backyard" problem. Seriously, where will we put the additional 350 nuclear power plants we'd need to be solely reliant on this source? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Khenan wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| Adventurer's OP wrote: |
" I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this [climate change] problem," Obama said.
|
It's totally unpersuasive. Gore is correct about the problem but wrong about the solution. McCain is right about the problem (he agrees with Gore) and right about the solution. Anything other than a McCain government would be counterproductive re the environment and energy policy unless Obama and Gore were to suddenly dispense with their totally unevidenced skepticism towards nuclear energy. |
The thing with nuclear power is the "not in my backyard" problem. Seriously, where will we put the additional 350 nuclear power plants we'd need to be solely reliant on this source? |
The 'not in my back yard' problem is borne out of fear, hysteria, ignorance and stupidity. As for where we should build them in the US, that I'm unqualified to answer. But France is 80% nuclear for electricity production - where does France build them? France also produces so much nuke energy it exports it.
We don't need to be solely reliant. We need to, in order of priority (a) eliminate middle east oil, (b) reduce per capita carbon emissions by French standards. We can still fly and drive 4-wheelers and use petroleum for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
So Obama effectively wants to demote Gore?
Not going to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think nuclear energy is a good source of energy for the future. Why not invest in other alternative fuels such as more solar power, investing in more urban transportation (mass transit), have more hybrid cars..... As far as I know, things remain radioactive for a very long, long, long time. I would hate to think of one our descendants opening up something and saying "Gee, I wonder what's in this thing...?". It wouldn't be a nice present. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I don't think nuclear energy is a good source of energy for the future. Why not invest in other alternative fuels such as more solar power, investing in more urban transportation (mass transit), have more hybrid cars..... As far as I know, things remain radioactive for a very long, long, long time. I would hate to think of one our descendants opening up something and saying "Gee, I wonder what's in this thing...?". It wouldn't be a nice present. |
Vitrification. Technology has caught up.
| Quote: |
| Vitrification is a proven technique in the disposal and long-term storage of nuclear waste or other hazardous wastes[2]. Waste is mixed with glass-forming chemicals to form molten glass that then solidifies, immobilizing the waste. The final waste form resembles obsidian and is a non-leaching, durable material that effectively traps the waste inside. The waste can be stored for relatively long periods in this form without concern for air or groundwater contamination. Bulk vitrification uses electrodes to melt soil and wastes where they lay buried. The hardened waste may then be disinterred with less danger of widespread contamination. According to the Pacific Northwest National Labs, "Vitrification locks dangerous materials into a stable glass form that will last for thousands of years." |
Justin is right. Nuclear power is our only viable option at this point. Today's nuke plants are nothing like the dangerous, inefficient behemoths of the 1970s that turned the American public against nuclear energy. What we need is a politician who's willing to take on the issue and educate the public.
Solar power is a possibility, but it would involve huge panels in the desert somewhere (probably Africa), and that carries a whole host of potential problems along with it. Nuclear power is cheap, safe, clean, local, and very difficult to disrupt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually the massive banks of solar cells are as inefficient as the massive wind farms. The problem comes from transporting the energy, and the costs involved in building the infrastructure. Wind farms can arguably justify this as windy areas aren't available everywhere, that's not an issue with the sun. Even in areas like the pacific northwest there is enough sunlight even in the rainy season to offset power usage on an individual basis.
Solar energy needs some investment as it currently stands. We need more durable, more efficient cells. We need a government program that either distributes these cells cheaply, or some sort of tax credit (which exists in a limited state currently) to incentivize their use. If all the buildings in the US were lined with solar absorbing cells/shingles the home/office power consumption would be greatly offset. Its a solution that allows for conversion of a large percentage of our power consumption without massive change in infrastructure.
Nuclear power should be on the table as well. If more coal plants are on the table, which they were until the DoE shot them down a few months ago, then nuclear power has to be considered. We simply don't have enough hydro or geothermal resources to go completely renewable, no matter how much the granolas might want there to be, so envy Iceland but energy solutions are going to either involve nuclear power or more oil/gas/coal plants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros is almost certainly right. Gore is not likely to take a demotion.
Fear of nuclear power is well-placed. When is the area around Chernobyl going to habitable again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chernobyl was incompetence, ill-design, and bad luck all rolled up into one. I daresay taking a Soviet Republic catastrophe from the 80s and propping that up as representative of what can be done with nuclear power today is a bit misleading.
I agree with Czarjorge's comments about solar's environmental dangers.
However, the trend in energy will be towards decentralization. Self-powering buildings and devices are the way to go. A back-up powergrid is fine, but buildings and large devices can power themselves autonomously 99% of the time. Except perhaps, ironically, for cars, which might be powered off your home's generator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Chernobyl was incompetence, ill-design, and bad luck all rolled up into one. I daresay taking a Soviet Republic catastrophe from the 80s and propping that up as representative of what can be done with nuclear power today is a bit misleading.
|
Is the question really what can be done? I think the question is: What guarantees are you offering that incompetence and bad luck, not to mention a terrorist act, won't happen if you build your reactor in my backyard?
I'll wait for an answer to when the area around Chernobyl will be habitable again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Chernobyl was incompetence, ill-design, and bad luck all rolled up into one. I daresay taking a Soviet Republic catastrophe from the 80s and propping that up as representative of what can be done with nuclear power today is a bit misleading.
|
Is the question really what can be done? I think the question is: What guarantees are you offering that incompetence and bad luck, not to mention a terrorist act, won't happen if you build your reactor in my backyard?
I'll wait for an answer to when the area around Chernobyl will be habitable again. |
I'm not sure, but it'll be before all the oil comes back.
We have a very limited set of options here. Modern nuclear reactors are the best of them; certainly better than Soviet reactors built in the 1970s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I don't think nuclear energy is a good source of energy for the future. Why not invest in other alternative fuels such as more solar power, investing in more urban transportation (mass transit), have more hybrid cars..... As far as I know, things remain radioactive for a very long, long, long time. I would hate to think of one our descendants opening up something and saying "Gee, I wonder what's in this thing...?". It wouldn't be a nice present. |
We should get to work on all alternatives, but the question is, can they at present satisfy our growing demand for energy yet simultaneously contribute to drastic cuts in co2 emissions necessary according the consensus of scientists? If your answer is �no� or �I don�t know� why take the above position? In any case, your comments are at odds with these and these experts.
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Today's nuke plants are nothing like the dangerous, inefficient behemoths of the 1970s that turned the American public against nuclear energy |
Modern nuclear plants are flawless, but I wasn�t aware there was anything especially amiss with the US plants built in the 70s. The US has 104 plants and none of which were built in recent decades, if I recall.
| Yataboy wrote: |
| Fear of nuclear power is well-placed. |
How�s that?
| Yataboy wrote: |
| When is the area around Chernobyl going to habitable again? |
I�m going to copy and paste something I said about Chernobyl elsewhere:
| I wrote: |
[There are] 440 electricity generating nuclear stations around the world. None have caused radiation or other damage to its surrounding environment or local population. The Chernobyl incident was caused by willful negligence on the part of its operating staff, which resulted in a steam explosion, fire and nuclear meltdown (not a nuclear explosion) and was, in the first place, built to a design that would not have been licensed for operation outside what was then the USSR. In fact, 700 UN scientists crawling over the consequences of Chernobyl have so far been prepared to certify only 45 deaths as a result of the disaster. Read the UN Chernobyl Forum Report. That�s slightly more than the numbers of daily road accident deaths (in just Thailand).
To hold up a Russian reactor that could never have been licensed in the West because of its deficiencies (and in which a steam explosion and fire, not a nuclear explosion, was caused by irresponsible experiment) as a reason for avoiding the development of nuclear power is perverse, foolish and juvenile. |
| Yataboy wrote: |
| Is the question really what can be done? I think the question is: What guarantees are you offering that incompetence and bad luck, not to mention a terrorist act, won't happen if you build your reactor in my backyard? |
With all due respect to Kuros, why not consult expert opinion as opposed to his?
Really though, the terrorism argument is weak. For starters, according to you and Huffdaddy, the threat of terrorism is totally exaggerated and due to fear-mongering and hysteria, so why have this concern at all? Secondly, the US has over 100 plants. Why didn�t terrorists attack them as opposed to skyscrapers and the Pentagon? Why are the world�s hundreds of nuclear plants not attacked by terrorists? The answer is quite straightforward: there�s no point. You�re committing the fallacy that a nuclear power station is a giant nuclear bomb. It isn�t. Chernobyl, terrorism, are mistakes made by folks at Nuke 101 level. Typical Democrat really. Above, in my reply to Adventurer, there are two science links with mountains of information.
| Yataboy wrote: |
| I'll wait for an answer to when the area around Chernobyl will be habitable again. |
This has become an irrelevance. Chernobyl was built by a bunch of cheap ass Commies. Modern power stations are not. Got questions? Put them to France and Sweden.
Given how crucial climate change is, John McCain is the only electable candidate at this stage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
