Will McCain or Obama better solve the energy crisis?

[CaptainZoidberg]

McCain

Pros:

-Has made some pretty ambitious rhetoric regarding nuclear power.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... olicy.html

We have in use today a zero emission energy that could provide electricity for millions more homes and businesses than it currently does. Yet it has been over twenty-five years since a nuclear power plant has been constructed. The barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. We've let the fears of thirty years ago, and an endless political squabble over the storage of nuclear spent fuel make it virtually impossible to build a single new plant that produces a form of energy that is safe and non-polluting. If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we? Is France a more secure, advanced and innovative country than we are? Are France's scientists and entrepreneurs more capable than we are? I need no answer to that rhetorical question. I know my country well enough to know otherwise.

Let's provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits

-I couldn't find a whole lot about McCain since his website doesn't have an issue page dedicated to energy. The best I could find was that speech.

Cons:

-Most of his positions on energy reform strike me as very vague compared to Obama, and I have questions that he'll actually do anything at all once elected. Consider that McCain doesn't say that he will put us on the track to make 80% of our energy nuclear, he only says that we are capable of doing it and that it is a good idea.

-Might be too influenced by the oil industry to actually act on any of his rhetoric.

-May try to pander to the "Drain America First" crowd rather than deal with the real issues.

Obama


Pros:

-He has some very clear promises regarding energy, and uses specific numbers, unlike John McCain who is much more vague.

Cons:

-Has some bizarre Ron Paul style idea that nuclear waste from one state should only be stored in that state, even if that means compromising some amount of safety.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7598337.html

-Panders to the anti-nuclear crowd. Obama on Yucca Mountain:

there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there

Anyone who has read any part of the Environmental Impact Statement on Yucca Mountain knows that's total garbage.

----------------

Any opinions on which candidate would do more to advance clean and renewable energy? On one hand, I think McCain's nuclear solution with biofuels for cars makes sense - on the other hand the lack of a hard commitment to any of these issues (i.e., no numbers), makes it difficult to know if he'll actually do anything.

Obama's position is very strong, precise, and well thought out, but I'm afraid that his idea of renewable as "sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal" will lead him to favor the inefficient but politically correct solutions like geothermal or tide power over what we really need - a nuclear power program like the one that France has.

[Hawkwings]

Obama was basically the only democratic candidate that didn't rule out nuclear as part of their energy program. I get the impression that he's pro-nuclear, but doesn't want to mention it for fear that it will scare away voters. The Yucca mountain thing I have no idea.

[Coyote]

McCain is so closely tied to the policies of Big Oil Bush that I doubt he'd get anywhere-- even if he did, in fact, have a plan. Every time he talks about energy policy, I can't shake the feeling that he's just viewing this as another 1970's style "energy crisis squeeze" that we have to get through-- a few years of belt-tightening and then we'll be on the other side, back to .99-cents a gallon gas.

Obama recognizes that this is the tip of a much, much bigger iceberg, I think.

Part of overall US power policy also rests in the great elephant in the room that no one's really addressing head on-- plans for our crumbling infrastructure. If we build a brand new 2010-technology nuke plant, but we still rely on a power grid built in 1962 to deliver it, it's pointless.

[CaptainZoidberg]

McCain is so closely tied to the policies of Big Oil Bush that I doubt he'd get anywhere-- even if he did, in fact, have a plan. Every time he talks about energy policy, I can't shake the feeling that he's just viewing this as another 1970's style "energy crisis squeeze" that we have to get through-- a few years of belt-tightening and then we'll be on the other side, back to .99-cents a gallon gas.

I'm pretty sure McCain knows more than that. After all, I've only met a handful of people who literally think we'll never run out of oil.

Part of overall US power policy also rests in the great elephant in the room that no one's really addressing head on-- plans for our crumbling infrastructure. If we build a brand new 2010-technology nuke plant, but we still rely on a power grid built in 1962 to deliver it, it's pointless.

Nuclear power is still useful, even if the grid is outdated. I can't see why a nuclear power plant would impact the grid any differently than, say, a coal plant.

My understanding was that the grid was a bigger issue for solar/wind, because of huge regional differences in performance.

[Shroom Man 777]

McCain is a pathological liar. That's all anyone needs to know.

[Dartzap]

Clearly Boris Johnston should run for president. He would have every right to do so

The UK government seems to be fairly set on using nuclear power at the moment and the infrastructure is always being updated, around here anyway.

No doubt that'll get the kibosh when the next lot get in, bah.

[Patrick Degan]

The Gimp is a tool. He will, like Chimpus Caesar, drag his feet on any solution and simply see to it that his pals in Big Oil squeeze every dollar they can get out of the market and the future be damned. CONservatives are steadfast in their denial of the future, so don't count on solutions of any kind from their camp.

[Ender]

Obama is Exelon's bitch. Look at where the donations for his IL run came from, he owes much of his career to them. I like the guy as a candidate, and frankly I look at this as corruption coming out in our favor for once, but the fact is the guy is to nuclear what Bush is to oil.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I couldn't be happier than that. I'm sorry, but if any corporate interest is unfairly tarred disproportionate to their fair share, its nuclear. The fact is that their safety record is something we'd adore and praise for any other sector of industry.

[CaptainZoidberg]

Obama is Exelon's bitch. Look at where the donations for his IL run came from, he owes much of his career to them. I like the guy as a candidate, and frankly I look at this as corruption coming out in our favor for once, but the fact is the guy is to nuclear what Bush is to oil.

Are you serious? That's the best news I've heard all day. What's wrong with being in the pockets of a clean, safe, and necessary industry? Obama gets my vote.

I'm curious if he'll end up supporting Yucca Mountain though. The way I see it, Yucca Mountain is a pinnacle battle. If Yucca opens, then the pro-nuclear crowd can cite tons of EISs and statistics showing that its safe - and effectively win. If Yucca doesn't open, then waste will have to be kept at some interim facility or at the reactor itself, and environmentalists will be able to use a lot of fear tactics about how close the waste is to home and how terrorists could get it.

[Darth Wong]

McCain is so closely tied to the policies of Big Oil Bush that I doubt he'd get anywhere-- even if he did, in fact, have a plan. Every time he talks about energy policy, I can't shake the feeling that he's just viewing this as another 1970's style "energy crisis squeeze" that we have to get through-- a few years of belt-tightening and then we'll be on the other side, back to .99-cents a gallon gas.

That bullshit sells well. A lot of the population feels the same way, and views the high gas prices primarily as a function of oil company profiteering.

Obama recognizes that this is the tip of a much, much bigger iceberg, I think.

He certainly seems like he should be intelligent enough to see that.

Part of overall US power policy also rests in the great elephant in the room that no one's really addressing head on-- plans for our crumbling infrastructure. If we build a brand new 2010-technology nuke plant, but we still rely on a power grid built in 1962 to deliver it, it's pointless.

That's a load of horseshit. There is a huge lead time involved in building and commissioning nuclear power plants. There is no such huge lead time for upgrading transmission wires and transformers. If the nuke plants are built and we decide the grid needs upgrading, we would be way ahead of where we were otherwise. That's hardly "pointless".

[Patrick Degan]

Nuclear power lights the way to the future. I have no problem with whatever ties Obama may have to this industry if it means weaning us off the teat of Big Oil —especially if that teat is now running dry.

[Mayabird]

Something I was thinking about on the ferry. There are probably lots of lobbies and special interest groups that Obama could get to support him. I know he IS a politician and all, but he doesn't seem like the type to accept support from something he would find personally abhorant, even if it would cost him something. You know, has a sense of morality and ethics and a backbone.

Assuming this is true, it would mean he does support nuclear power rather strongly to let them get that close.

[Darth Wong]

If he also accepted support from MADD, would this mean that it's sleazy politics to be against drunk driving? There's nothing wrong with accepting support from people who are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

[sketerpot]

If we suddenly find gas prices prohibitively high, we're going to need to rely a lot more on our rail infrastructure. Let's compare McCain and Obama on federal support for railroads:

McCain: Shut down Amtrack. Has been consistently (and often vehemently) anti-rail throughout his career.

Obama: Invest in improving rail infrastructure, commit to long-term funding and reform of Amtrack. He has sponsored legislation to do this, and it's now part of his official campaign platform.

The more I investigate McCain, the less I like him.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

It's looking more and more like, if he can do even half the stuff he says he wants, that Obama would be looked back on as one of the best presidents... (I'd say of the century, but that would be a little past just damning with faint praise...)

[Mayabird]

If he also accepted support from MADD, would this mean that it's sleazy politics to be against drunk driving? There's nothing wrong with accepting support from people who are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Good point.

To not spam up the thread, another thought I was having. The "age issue." Sure, McCain might be smart enough to realize what's going on, but even if he knows that things will be down the shitter in thirty years, he also knows that he'll be dead of old age before that happens. Why care?

Obama is still in his forties. If he does realize the full scope of the troubles the future holds, he also knows that he could very well still be alive then. Even more, he has two young children whose futures he has to worry about. They'll almost certainly still be alive if or when society collapses from whatever reason. He has to think in the long term.