Are you saying that if nuclear power is so good, then so is Europe? You lib-lover you. Lol!

In summary, Democrats want to fuel money into hype and rhetoric at a higher price tage than the current energy crisis to line their pockets with green - summed in one word - Socialism.

I don’t question our ability. I question the practicality, given the other options that are becoming available.

I meant to say that people that always cite the high cost of something to impede it’s progress, are usually the same people that never challenge the waste in government.

Thank you for clarifying. Now, could you please clarify your clarification? On the face of it, your explanation seems counter-intuitive.

I guarantee that we could eliminate enough fluff from the government budget to more than pay for our nuclear needs.

Thank you for that too. But it would seem more sensible to make that guarantee on the back of options that are certainly cleaner, and almost certainly cheaper in the long run, if they aren’t already? Wouldn’t failing to do that be fluff? Wouldn’t that be wasteful? Either way, I duly note your guarantee, and I will file it along with the rest of them.

Nuclear power can be achieved despite the potentially high costs. My earlier comment re: entitlements was not properly written, I meant to say that people that always cite the high cost of something to impede it’s progress, are usually the same people that never challenge the waste in government.

I guarantee that we could eliminate enough fluff from the government budget to more than pay for our nuclear needs.

Personally, I think he’d be better off with a properly designed prize for algal biofuels. The incentive value in that area is more obvious, at least on the face of it.

However, it still can make sense if no other more cost-effective options are available. But if there are, it doesn’t. In countries where wind, sun, waves and/or hot rocks are readily and reliably availale, that’s what they emphasize. The US has some of the best wind and sun resources of anywhere in the world. Geothermal resources as well. But not all locations are equally blessed. While it’s the case that several studies have indicated those resources alone could power the entire country, it would require an extensive transmission upgrade. And that’s probably impractical in the short term because of regulatory, right of way issues, etc., not to mention the expense. But if those weren’t issues it would still almost certainly be cheaper to go that route.

You talk about “bloated governmental agencies or wasteful entitlement programs”, and that’s the real irony. What do you think nuclear will entail? Show me a nuclear plant that has ever been built without significant governmental subsidies.

2. Currently McCain still woujld like to explore other areas before ANWR, but with pressure, he will come around. Obama? No chance.

3. Nuclear energy is the predominant power source for most of Europe. But you assert that the US would be unable to transition because of the cost? Why do most people of the liberal persuasion cite costs as the main barrier to achieving items of which they oppose, but have to find a bloated governmental agency or wasteful entitlement program?

Let’s let the oil companies use their excessive profits to continue explore the solar, hydro, hydrogen etc. alternatives as they currently are, and the government can subsidize the more expensive nuclear option. That seems to make sense, right?

4. And obviously, you don’t believe in making the competition interesting do you? Or incentivizing someone, above and beyond the accolades and monetary rewards that will eventually follow.

I guess I just don’t understand your opposition to that. Where’s the downside?

1. Lifting the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling only leaves the question to the states, most of which are unlikely to agree to drilling. Consequently it’s unlikely to have much practical effect. But McCain never talks about what he’s going to do about that, if anything. In fact, even he has conceded it would only little more than a psychological effect. And you can’t fill your gas tank with psychological effects.

2. McCain will keep ANWR off limits. Judging from everything I’ve read, that’s the place that would provide the most bang for the buck.

3. McCain wants to build 400 nuclear plants. According to the proposals currently on the table in Florida, Texas, and SC (all of which use the same design the French used to build almost all of theirs) the going price right now is about $7 billion apiece (not including tansmission lines). Thus at current prices (and prices are going up steeper for nuclear plants than any other type) he’s talking about an investment of 2.8 trillion dollars minimum, and that would have to include 10s of billions of dollars in federal subsidies. There’s no way around it. And yet he’s against providing any subsidies to true renewables — things like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. The irony is that there is every indication that it would be much cheaper to build the same capacity in wind and solar right now, because as they reach scale their costs will trend down, not up. Geothermal is also cheaper in some places, and the cost of geothermal is also trending down. So, even without considering waste, safety, and decommissioning issues, nuclear is no longer the most cost-effective way to go. And yet he wants true renewable technologies to try to compete without any incentives. That doesn’t strike me as the most cost-effective way to go.

4. A $300 million battery prize is an interesting idea, but it’s not very well fleshed out. He hasn’t provided details. Moreover, he hasn’t demonstrated it would have any real incentive effect over and above the incentive that already exists. After all, a manufacturer who develops a battery with the general characteristics of what McCain is talking about (and you can’t talk in anything but general terms because McCain didn’t provide any specifics) is likely to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues anyway.

I challenge anyone to refute anything I’ve said.