McCcain on Energy

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

McCcain on Energy

Post by Keegan »

Just some interesting words from John McCain @ Scientists and Engineers for America


One Wide eyed dreamer could pretend, for a moment he is talking about Aneutronic polywell fusion reactors.

Energy

Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

Over time, I believe that we must reform our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources that meet the multiple shared objective of promoting environmental, economic and national security. One of the prevailing issues of our time and the next presidency will be how to deal with the issues of energy security and sustainability. It is important that we shift to sustainable, clean burning energy sources or advance to technologies that make our more traditional resources cleaner burning.

As President, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use.

In the progress of other alternative energy sources -- such as wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and hydroelectric --government must be an ally but not an arbiter. In less than a generation, wind power alone could account for a fifth or more of all our electricity. And just in recent memory, solar energy has gone from a novelty to a fast-growing industry. I've voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent. And when I'm signing laws, instead of casting one of a hundred votes, I intend to see that objective better served. We will reform this effort so that it is fair, rational, and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.

I will also commit the federal government to a prosperous clean technology agenda and to becoming the world leader in green technologies. Americans have always been the world's leaders in innovation, and it's time for our economy to adapt and take an active role in the new green international economy.

These investments by government into basic research along with aggressive and realistic targets for greenhouse gas emissions will be critical in spurring revolutionary innovations in energy that will, over the long term, reduce energy costs and increase economic growth.

Is there Hope ?
Purity is Power

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Keegan wrote: Is there Hope ?
Hi Keegan - I see from you profile you might be resident in Oz. I am in the UK. Might we be counting ourselves lucky we are not living in America in 10 years time?

The arguments for and against Nuke itself are complex. The deciding issue for me is preventing environmental catastrophe now (for that IS what we are all facing), at the cost of Decommissioning Costs, Reprocessing and 'Safe-' Waste Disposal costs.

There is also the thorny old chestnut of practical and effective long term waste disposal itself - being technologically beyond our current grasp. Perhaps.

All these issues and costs, mean that the Nuclear Industry will always be utterly co-dependent with 'political and public responsibility'. National security and public safety are also jeopardised by having creating further targets for hostile insurgents and a Pandora's box of ugly accidents.

It is these same issues and above all true costs, that mean that the market will never take full ownership of the nuclear industry, unless 'true' costs are passed onto the consumer, rather than to the tax payer, overt public sector investment aside. I think we are currently at a water-shed.

We need something 'carbon clean', right now. Now is when we decide what will obtain in 5-10 years - so, Nuke it has to be.

All this aside, I was almost believing that this McCain guy might be presenting a 'rational', well considered argument, until I read this:
McCain wrote:... letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy
Idiotic. It is the markets that have decided to be where we are today - with no Pollywell and the atmosphere and the seas accelerating towards catastrophe and mountains of radioactive material buried under the floorboards. Safe.

If there is only one lesson from the the whole of political and economic history, it is that the market alone can never and must never be the sole 'decision makers' in areas of public policy such as this: There is a 'Public Interest' and indeed a greater international interest to serve also. There is also the undeniable issue of a 'profound' conflict of interest, so far as 'the market' itself is concerned when it comes to a definition of collective benefit.

To that extent, Pollywell, and projects like it, should the the arch enemy of the atomic energy industry, so too the petrochemical industry, AKA WGB.

Anyway, IMHO.

What does Obarma Bin Laden have to say on the subject? Anyone heard?

Scupperer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Post by Scupperer »

Idiotic. It is the markets that have decided to be where we are today - with no Pollywell and the atmosphere and the seas accelerating towards catastrophe and mountains of radioactive material buried under the floorboards. Safe.

If there is only one lesson from the the whole of political and economic history, it is that the market alone can never and must never be the sole 'decision makers' in areas of public policy such as this: There is a 'Public Interest' and indeed a greater international interest to serve also. There is also the undeniable issue of a 'profound' conflict of interest, so far as 'the market' itself is concerned when it comes to a definition of collective benefit.
Actually, it's the governments that have helped guide us to where we are today - publicly financed highway systems that encourage... no, demand... automobile use. Zoning and building codes that force designing for the automobile instead of people, making automobiles a requirement for everyday living (suburbia vs. urban environments), tax breaks, incentives and subsidies for drilling, exploration, distribution.

No, I'd say, to date, that governments are just as responsible, if not more so, than the free market. Especially with regards to the U.S. and oil.

When it comes to choosing alternative energy, so far, governments have proven incompetent - corn ethanol, at an energy loss in conversion; converting rain forests to sugar cane fields, risking ecological disaster. People supposedly starving because food is being converted to fuel...

I wonder which technology they'll pick next? Probably one that's too expensive and requires subsidies to be profitable, has a serious list of "unintended consequences", and in the end will be supplanted by something better that the horrible "free market" has come up with.

I don't believe it's the government's place to be choosing which new energy technology to back, until there's a clear winner. Providing R&D subsidies, or funding for test stations, on the other hand, I don't have a problem with.
Perrin Ehlinger

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

Scrupper didn't mention that Nuke power was heavily subsidized too; especially through the limits of liability through the Price Anderson act:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Price-An ... ted_States

I also find it amusing that you simply assume gubberment would invest in Polywell. I suspect EMC2 is on the right track and will soon move to private financing, but with great naval interest.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Scupperer wrote:
Idiotic. It is the markets that have decided to be where we are today - with no Pollywell and the atmosphere and the seas accelerating towards catastrophe and mountains of radioactive material buried under the floorboards. Safe.

If there is only one lesson from the the whole of political and economic history, it is that the market alone can never and must never be the sole 'decision makers' in areas of public policy such as this: There is a 'Public Interest' and indeed a greater international interest to serve also. There is also the undeniable issue of a 'profound' conflict of interest, so far as 'the market' itself is concerned when it comes to a definition of collective benefit.
Actually, it's the governments that have helped guide us to where we are today - publicly financed highway systems that encourage... no, demand... automobile use. Zoning and building codes that force designing for the automobile instead of people, making automobiles a requirement for everyday living (suburbia vs. urban environments), tax breaks, incentives and subsidies for drilling, exploration, distribution.

No, I'd say, to date, that governments are just as responsible, if not more so, than the free market. Especially with regards to the U.S. and oil.

When it comes to choosing alternative energy, so far, governments have proven incompetent - corn ethanol, at an energy loss in conversion; converting rain forests to sugar cane fields, risking ecological disaster. People supposedly starving because food is being converted to fuel...

I wonder which technology they'll pick next? Probably one that's too expensive and requires subsidies to be profitable, has a serious list of "unintended consequences", and in the end will be supplanted by something better that the horrible "free market" has come up with.

I don't believe it's the government's place to be choosing which new energy technology to back, until there's a clear winner. Providing R&D subsidies, or funding for test stations, on the other hand, I don't have a problem with.
Its the governments fault because they allow the markets to behave like that. They allow the markets/industry to get away with it, because they always have done and it didn't seem to be a problem at the time.

Also, government and industry are related by both legislation and lobby (not to mention vested interest) and as MSimon just said elsewhere, because if government didn't let industry operate like that, the whole economy would grind to an assured halt. (I paraphrase).

So, it seems it is naive to expect the market to make costly changes in direction (unless there is an economic or legal imperative - en mass, they sure don't seem to demonstrate any 'ethical' or 'public interest' imperative).

It seems equally naive to expect politicians to change the direction of things, unless there is a 'majority' of will and a 'sufficiency' of means. We have neither just yet.

I don't believe politicians have been entirely incompetent in the provision of energy, just ever so slightly negligent/under-informed/weak.

So to answer the original question, I suppose we must live in 'hope'.

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

rcain wrote:Might we be counting ourselves lucky we are not living in America in 10 years time?
Its painfull to watch a Superpower slowly bleed to death.

Its not the peoples fault. Its the

NEW WORLD ORDER
To that extent, Pollywell, and projects like it, should the the arch enemy of the atomic energy industry, so too the petrochemical industry, AKA WGB.
Yep. All controlled by the NWO.

Sadly regardless of scientific results, this is why i fear Polywell will have a very hard time getting off the ground.

Anyone else know of the ever silent monolithic conspiracy of which i speak ?
Purity is Power

tonybarry
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by tonybarry »

Hi guys,

It might be best to move this discussion to General.

New World Orders are really out of the scope of News items.

Regards,
Tony Barry

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

First off. I don't like subsidy plans except temporary ones. And even those are bad.

Look at what a subsidy plan got us:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... d-buy.html

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... eline.html

BTW if you read the above you will find that Johnny Mac's opponent is in thick with the thieves.

Government should do Research. Private sector Development. It is cheaper that way.

1. Bad ideas don't cost so much.
2. They get killed faster.

BTW the mortgage crisis is not going to take the USA down. Worst case it is a couple of trillion hit max in an economy capitalized at over 100 trillion with yearly profits on that capital running 13 trillion.

Run the numbers. It is a small hiccup. As Johnny Mac says: the fundamentals are sound.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Idiotic. It is the markets that have decided to be where we are today - with no Pollywell and the atmosphere and the seas accelerating towards catastrophe and mountains of radioactive material buried under the floorboards.
The sky fell yesterday. You can come out of your cave. The oceans are cooling. No sun spots in sight. The warmers are predicting at least 8 years of cooling and this year alone we have erased 30 years of warming.

Last measurement I saw was that sea levels are currently rising 6" a century. Run for your lives before we all drown. It is like a tsunami bearing down on us. Think of it, if it keeps going at the current rate seas will be 5 ft higher in 1,000 years. Just think of a poor small child who's parents don't have the money to move because the evil capitalists stole their lunch. That child will drown in a thousand years if he is standing by the sea shore. If he is laying down it could be in as little as 50 years depending on how close to the water's edge his parents allow him to go.

We don't want dead children do we? I have a plan. First give me all your money. Then we can discuss the rest. In fact to solve the problem and save the children I will need all your money for the next 50 years. Hand it over. Or else.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

To stop the steep increases in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere I have a plan to cut human emissions of methane 25% in one year. We will get everyone but essential folks (that would be me) to stop eating for three months straight. Right away human emissions of methane will drop 25%.

After that if they are still hungry the non-essential people will be allowed to eat for 9 months. Run the numbers. 3/12 = 25%.

If we increase it to 4 months next year I promise you even bigger reductions.

After we have cut methane emissions by 100% we can start in on CO2. My plan? Get people to stop breathing for a month straight. I know that will only make an 8% difference in CO2. But you have to start some where.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Keegan
Posts: 206
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:29 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Keegan »

MSimon wrote: We don't want dead children do we? I have a plan. First give me all your money. Then we can discuss the rest. In fact to solve the problem and save the children I will need all your money for the next 50 years. Hand it over. Or else.
Wow Simon, It suddenly all makes sense.

But are the people who we let tax us, trustworthy ?
Purity is Power

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Keegan wrote:
MSimon wrote: We don't want dead children do we? I have a plan. First give me all your money. Then we can discuss the rest. In fact to solve the problem and save the children I will need all your money for the next 50 years. Hand it over. Or else.
Wow Simon, It suddenly all makes sense.

But are the people who we let tax us, trustworthy ?
Surely you are joking.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

scareduck
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:03 am

Post by scareduck »

rcain wrote:Idiotic. It is the markets that have decided to be where we are today - with no Pollywell and the atmosphere and the seas accelerating towards catastrophe and mountains of radioactive material buried under the floorboards. Safe.
You need to talk to the people mandating gas-fired power generation, to the NIMBYs who don't want power plants in their neighborhoods, etc. There's no such thing as a "free market" when it comes to utilities.

rcain
Posts: 992
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:43 pm
Contact:

Post by rcain »

Keegan wrote: Its not the peoples fault. Its the ...
?
yes, i agree, certainly not all the people, all the time, that apparently is theoretically impossible; but most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time.

i think we can also safely say that at least 50% of the earths population, is in a word, incredibly stupid. we can argue the exact figures, i personally think it probably nearer 99.9%.

i think as usual MSimon may have the answer:
MSimon wrote: My plan? Get people to stop breathing for a month straight. I know that will only make an 8% difference in CO2. But you have to start some where.
It is a 'radical' and 'bold' plan Simon; i grant you, a very market oriented approach and typically 'transatlantic' approach; MONEY is certainly where we are at, and if we can put a purchase tax on the air we breath we will be in happy and familiar territory and everything will turn out just fine.

If it all goes horribly wrong, we can rely on the chinese to declare a global state of emergency and take over the entire civilized world by physical means.

good plan. I'm in. when do we issue stock? I'm thinking about a hedge fund to go with it.

to tonybarry: yes, what was the subject? - MCain, Obama, fusion and futurism.

JoeStrout
Site Admin
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Fort Collins, CO, USA
Contact:

Post by JoeStrout »

I've moved this from News to General, as it is clearly not news, and has degenerated quite a bit into sarcasm and ranting. Any more of that and I'll lock the thread. Please see our new guidelines for political statements, and do your best to follow them.

Thanks,
- Joe
Joe Strout
Talk-Polywell.org site administrator

Post Reply