McCain - the Lexington Project

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

So more jobs leads to lower unemployment? Why didn't I think of that?

So why are you against oil independence and being self-sufficient?

[JohnLockesGhost]

So why are you against oil independence and being self-sufficient?

Why does self-sufficiency suck? How about I tell it like this...

If you were alone on a desert isle, nobody else around, what would your state of existence be? Pretty poor, right? But you'd be self-sufficient. You'd have to gather all your own food, make your own clothing and construct your own housing. Your labor would be spread over many tasks.

What if one day, ten people crashed on your lonely isle. Well, even though they represent more mouths to feed and backs to clothe, their presence would greatly improve your state (provided they can work). Because you have more people on the island, maybe only 6 have to gather food, and they get good and scrambling up trees to gather coconuts, spearing fish and spotted berries. They become specialists. Other people specialize in making clothing and constructing shelter. Now no-one on the island is self-sufficient anymore because they don't do all the jobs that provide for their sustinance, but they'll still be better off because individual productivity will have gone up. This is the beauty of the division of Labor, Adam Smith wrote about.

If you multiply this scenario by a few billion you get the modern, global economy. Quite frankly, I don't know squat about semi-conductors, washing machines, or glass making, but I still am able to use the products of people who do. Such are the wonders of INTERdependence. We all rely on each other to provide goods and services that we can't produce ourselves and we're much richer for it.

Self-sufficiency means poverty. It's been a tenet of North Korea, Israel's kibbutzes and Tanzania's "ujama" movement, all total failures.

EDIT: This argument is only about the ECONOMIC costs of self-sufficiency. If someone were to argue that self-sufficiency is worth the cost for national security reasons, I'd listen. But they better make a pretty good case.

[mjah]

"McCain said he's fine with another 100 years of US troops in Iraq."

Context required. But you know that.

Context already baked in. But you know that.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

If you multiply this scenario by a few billion you get the modern, global economy. Quite frankly, I don't know squat about semi-conductors, washing machines, or glass making, but I still am able to use the products of people who do. Such are the wonders of INTERdependence. We all rely on each other to provide goods and services that we can't produce ourselves and we're much richer for it.

But we have ENOUGH people INSIDE the U.S. to handle this and become self sufficient at handling our energy needs.

You are correct in the scenario about being alone on an island alone. Then self sufficiency would suck, but we have over 300 million americans in this country, not including illegals, who at LEAST 5% are unemployed. Why not train them or put them to work on energy related matters. We have the resources to get this done.

Comparing North Korea to the U.S. is invalid in terms of economy related matters. South Korea alone is only about the size of Indiana. We have way more land and resources then they do, little alone being a free government versus a communist regime. That alone puts the skids to many things economically.

[Destino]

I don't share the goal of his plan. It doesn't take a visionary to say "let's make our own energy" and mean expanding old technology that the country hasn't wanted to expand in the past. Now that people are scared that fear is being used to promote the same damn thing the nation has opposed. More oil, more coal, and more nuclear plants.

Lexington is (one of the places) where the nation decided to leave behind the accepted and forge a new concept. Rights from our creator that no government could deny! The moon was a new experience for mankind as a whole! The manhattan project saw the creation of a terrible new device that haunts the world to this day. All evidence that you can do what they say in impossible in short order if you just set your mind on the goal and refuse to fail.

The "Lexington Project" sounds like a cheap bandaid. It's full of old technology and reasons to cut corners.

Wake me when someone says something with some vision like "time to kick the oil habit for good, time to invest in alternative infrastructure". I've heard more coal and more nuclear plants 100 times before.

[JohnLockesGhost]

But we have ENOUGH people INSIDE the U.S. to handle this and become self sufficient at handling our energy needs.

You are correct in the scenario about being alone on an island alone. Then self sufficiency would suck, but we have over 300 million americans in this country, not including illegals, who at LEAST 5% are unemployed. Why not train them or put them to work on energy related matters. We have the resources to get this done.

Comparing North Korea to the U.S. is invalid in terms of economy related matters. South Korea alone is only about the size of Indiana. We have way more land and resources then they do, little alone being a free government versus a communist regime. That alone puts the skids to many things economically.

Your objections are only in terms of scale. My conclusion still stands, self-sufficiency will cost us in economic terms.

Also, while the costs of North Korea's pursuit of self-sufficiency are obvious, ours (because of the reasons you cited) would be much less obvious. In fact, I have no doubt that the costs to us (higher deficits due to subsidies, higher energy costs) would be blamed on anything BUT our pursuit of energy independence.

[PeterMP]

McCain, whether he gets elected or not, will be long dead by the time 2025 arrives. So he won't have to suffer the same Earthbound ridicule as Carter when it turns out that his so-far empty rhetoric, just like Carter's, is a pipe dream in the absence of anything substantial to back it up.

And if energy independence was as straightforward as Gramps is suggesting, something tells me he would have a more well-developed plan. But I'm willing to hear him out: let's see what McCain suggests over the next 3 weeks or so, and how thoroughly it gets shredded, before giving him credit for anything more than digging himself into a deeper hole.

Come on. You can't be complaining this is a bad thing. You were starting threads the other month because research money was drying up.

The fact of the matter is that McCain doesn't need to know how to get it done any more JFK knew how were going to put a man on the moon. For JFK, it was a great and historic prediction. For any other President (even the great ones), it would have been ludicrious because the technology was not there.

What's the difference between McCain and Carter? Almost 40 years of research and technology.

With all that said, we won't ever be energy independent. As our energy choices expand, the cost of foreign energy (e.g. oil) will go down. That will increase consumption (and yes SUV's will come back). What will happen over even the next 10 years is our choices for energy sources and delivery of energy will increase. The end result is the price of energy will largely be separated from oil (i.e. if oil prices go up it won't affect energy prices too much because other forms will just kick in).

This would happen if we elected Cheney as the next President.

I actually don't like the idea of drilling for more oil (we've run up enough debt, leave some resources for future generations to actually pay it off w/ (oil will always have value)), and I don't like nuclear (It is 20th century technology. By the time you get the things built, you might get 5 years use out of them before they are obsolete). I do love the general idea and $300,000,000 for the battery that makes the next jump in technology (there have to be some stipulations so that somebody doesn't just take the money, sell the patent to big oil who promptly buries it in a filing cabinet somewhere). I'd do the samething with hydrogen. Make it even more. $500,000,000 to the person/organization that can demonstrate a clean and energy effecient method to produce, store, ship, and run a car off hydrogen in a practical manner.

[PeterMP]

Your objections are only in terms of scale. My conclusion still stands, self-sufficiency will cost us in economic terms.

Also, while the costs of North Korea's pursuit of self-sufficiency are obvious, ours (because of the reasons you cited) would be much less obvious. In fact, I have no doubt that the costs to us (higher deficits due to subsidies, higher energy costs) would be blamed on anything BUT our pursuit of energy independence.

The big thing you are missing is ENERGY independent. Not total independence. In fact, you could argue our energy independence would be a good think in that it would INCREASE our interactions w/ others. Essentially, we would become the energy specialists selling our product and technology to others.

To borrow an over simplification from you, the butcher doesn't pay another butcher to cut his meat.

[JohnLockesGhost]

The big thing you are missing is ENERGY independent. Not total independence. In fact, you could argue our energy independence would be a good think in that it would INCREASE our interactions w/ others. Essentially, we would become the energy specialists selling our product and technology to others.

To borrow an over simplification from you, the butcher doesn't pay another butcher to cut his meet.

Why would they buy our expensive ethanol or whatever when they can just buy the oil we stopped using on the cheap?

It'll cost us to be energy independent. If it didn't, we'd already be there.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not anti-nuclear energy by any means....

But how much will it cost to bulild 25 freaking nuclear power plants in 18 years?

[PeterMP]

Why would they buy our expensive ethanol or whatever when they can just buy the oil we stopped using on the cheap?

It'll cost us to be energy independent. If it didn't, we'd already be there.

Technology changes.

I've posted I don't know how many links in how many ever threads over the last week on changes in technology w/ respect to ethanol. A company, with funding from GM, is opening a plant to produce ethanol from GARBAGE and TIRES.

People are going to PAY them to take the things they are then going to make ethanol from.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The real question - and Mr Ghost is close to the point - is "At what cost independence?" We could probably achieve "independence" with coal and nuclear power. We would have spent a fortune on old technology, be breathing filthy, and have a serious nuclear waste problem to contend with...but we would be independent.

All McCain's plan really seems to be is to fill up the "supply" side of the equation with a whole bunch of stuff that we already know how to do and has already proven to be problematic. It's like attacking a hunger problem by nationalizing the mass production of Twinkies.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

McCain is really stepping up with Energy policy. I can't wait to get to the debates.

Please McCain explain where you are going to get the nuclear engineers to pull this off and not have some reactors blow up. We gonna kidnap some germans and french scientist?

Say no to old coot backward thinking! Say yes to 150 billion in new tech research! Besides if organic solar cells become a reality we'll have no need for nuclear! Invest in that!

[JohnLockesGhost]

Please McCain explain where you are going to get the nuclear engineers to pull this off and not have some reactors blow up. We gonna kidnap some germans and french scientist?

Sure. Why not?

I don't mean kidnap them, but we could certainly hire them.

[Zen-like Todd]

Frankly, this idea of knocking "old tech" is ridiculous. Wheels are old tech. Clearly we should never use them again, and must move on from them immediately!

Nuclear is necessary and important to our short and medium term energy future. It emits no air pollution, no greenhouse gases, and its radioactive waste is contained (unlike coal, incidentally). It is significantly more important in the Northeast, where solar and wind resources are more limited and less cost efficient. It is a 24/7/365 baseload energy provider, unlike wind, and to a lesser extent, solar thermal.

As far as coal, yes, it sucks. But it's here. It's ALREADY here. 50% of our electrical output is derived from coal. It's not all going to go away overnight. Spending some money on clean coal tech to reduce carbon output while transitioning to future sources is a smart idea. If we waited for flying cars before building automobiles, you'd be walking or bicyciling to work everyday.

EVERYONE who studies the issue quickly realizes that a diverse portfolio of energy supplies will be necessary to bring us to a cleaner, more secure, energy independent future. He has covered all of the logical bases, as he should. To knock him for that is quite frankly, ignorant.

[Zen-like Todd]

I'm not anti-nuclear energy by any means....

But how much will it cost to bulild 25 freaking nuclear power plants in 18 years?

About 2 billion a pop.

[PeterMP]

The real question - and Mr Ghost is close to the point - is "At what cost independence?" We could probably achieve "independence" with coal and nuclear power. We would have spent a fortune on old technology' date=' be breathing filthy, and have a serious nuclear waste problem to contend with...but we would be independent.

All McCain's plan really seems to be is to fill up the "supply" side of the equation with a whole bunch of stuff that we already know how to do and has already proven to be problematic. It's like attacking a hunger problem by nationalizing the mass production of Twinkies.[/quote']

That's not accurate. He's talked plenty about alternatives and conservation.

The battery thing alone is a big deal that would essentially be an alternative because (at least according to the thread yesterday) we waste energy at not peak times that could be used to charge cars.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

You can knock him -- he's put all his eggs in one basket. Nuclear is his solution.

[Zen-like Todd]

Please McCain explain where you are going to get the nuclear engineers to pull this off and not have some reactors blow up. We gonna kidnap some germans and french scientist?

Say no to old coot backward thinking! Say yes to 150 billion in new tech research! Besides if organic solar cells become a reality we'll have no need for nuclear! Invest in that!

Organic solar cells are photovoltaic. That means they generate electricity. They generate electricity only when the sun is shining. That's great for peak production, not so great for cloudy/rainy days, and night time. You either need a tremendous revolution in incredibly cheap electrical storage, or you need a GHG free baseload source like ohh.... NUCLEAR.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Organic solar cells are photovoltaic. That means they generate electricity. They generate electricity only when the sun is shining. That's great for peak production, not so great for cloudy/rainy days, and night time. You either need a tremendous revolution in incredibly cheap electrical storage, or you need a GHG free baseload source like ohh.... NUCLEAR.

What's the going rate for Uranium nowadays? Just asking.

[Zen-like Todd]

You can knock him -- he's put all his eggs in one basket. Nuclear is his solution.

You are completely ignorant on the subject. He has done anything but that.

http://johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm#3

Investing In Clean, Alternative Sources Of Energy

John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy. Green jobs and green technology will be vital to our economic future. There is no reason that the U.S. should not be a leader in developing and deploying these new technologies.

John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies. Coal produces the majority of our electricity today. Some believe that marketing viable clean coal technologies could be over 15 years away. John McCain believes that this is too long to wait, and we need to commit significant federal resources to the science, research and development that advance this critical technology. Once commercialized, the U.S. can then export these technologies to countries like China that are committed to using their coal - creating new American jobs and allowing the U.S. to play a greater role in the international green economy.

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions.

John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.

Back to top

[Zen-like Todd]

What's the going rate for Uranium nowadays? Just asking.

Effectively nothing. Not strictly speaking of course. But fuel costs at nuclear plants are lost in the noise. The main costs are capital construction costs (which are high) and labor costs.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Effectively nothing. Not strictly speaking of course. But fuel costs at nuclear plants are lost in the noise. The main costs are capital construction costs (which are high) and labor costs.

That's what I'd guess, but I've heard Uranium costs have gone through the roof recently.

Not that it matters, like you said.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

i stand corrected he will "encourage" the market by maintaining the status quo! i change my opinion vote for old coot!

[Zen-like Todd]

i stand corrected he will "encourage" the market by maintaining the status quo! i change my opinion vote for old coot!

If by status quo you mean not remotely close to the status quo, then yes.

Just admit you were wrong. You don't have to vote for him. But you were entirely wrong on this issue.