McCain - the Lexington Project

[PeterMP]

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.

I agree, but do our short and medium term energy future require us to start building them like crazy. My understanding is that there is a back log to even buy parts and no matter who is President there are going to be NIMBY issues that also cause delays.

I'm not saying close them, but I do believe by the time you can get them in place they won't have a very long useful life until they are surpassed by new technology (I said before 5 years of actual operation, but realistically it depends on what happens to energy costs across the board) for what you put into them. To the point that I wouldn't be surprised that we long-term would be better off sucking it up and dealing w/ it.

[Kilmer17]

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

Someones not paying attention.

[mjah]

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.

Oh, I'm happy to talk about actual research.

But this is about McCain's lip service to the idea of a general plan. As I have already said: let's see the details over the next few weeks.

Lip service is a great start. But until one of the candidates gets real and speaks in more than generalities, nobody has advanced further than Carter. He didn't exactly get very far, and (unlike McCain) few people even doubted that he was serious about it!

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.

Ugh. JFK could reasonably assume that we would use chemical rockets, and he also knew we would use the most brilliant rocket designers on the planet to get the job done, in the form of relocated German scientists and engineers. He knew which agency would spearhead the effort, and he even knew who within the agency would be in charge at the top of the management side and the technical side.

So he had these things checked off in his personal top-level list: the What, the Who, the When, the Why, and the Where. What remained was the very intimidating How: the domain of scientists and engineers. And there was an immense amount of How to be done -- but von Braun had already sketched out the basic needs and requirements for a Moon rocket system at that time. The basic top-level calculations and 30,000-foot technical needs were already known. A small set of basic feasible approaches had already been postulated by von Braun and his team. The next many years were spent incrementally developing ingenious ways to expel tons of incredibly tough devils from the details.

(Sounds a lot like the Manhattan Project, actually.)

That's one hell of a head start for JFK over McCain, who thus far has the Why (of course) and a When that's far enough in the future to appear completely arbitrary. He doesn't really even have a clear definition of the What, has no idea about the Who ("industry?" ok...) and Where, and has said absolutely zero of substance about the all-important How.

They are not at all the same thing. Not even close. Not in reach, not in ambition, and not in realistic content. Even Carter took a researched stab at the What and How: "clean coal."

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.

Agreed. And not just because the technology wasn't there: because the critical mandate and the reasonable assessment of cost weren't there either. For any other president, it would have sounded like McCain's situation now, actually: lip service.

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

More like 30 years. It's certainly enough to say "clean coal" isn't the answer. So there's a "not-How." But it's not enough to come up with an overarching plan for the next 17 years of energy development. Turns out that energy is going to take more than 30 years of post-Carter-era research to figure out. That's no excuse not to keep working on it, but McCain (and Obama, if he ends up jumping in with similar rhetoric) is saying he wants to put the cart before the horse.

With all that said, we won't ever be energy independent.

Agreed. The energy effort will stop when energy -- whatever the source -- is suitably cheap for most people. (Which is still is, even today. The future may be a different story.)

I think there's great promise in nuclear, given that we really have made order-of-magnitude strides in nuclear safety and engineering since the 1960s and 1970s. I agree with the idea of increasing nuclear's contribution to the energy picture (among other contributors), even though it seems to be a political impossibility and this is just the latest round of yay-nuclear talk from a presidential candidate.

It's all hot air, until someone actually produces this phantom realistic plan. Shoe me the real How.

[Zen-like Todd]

I think it's important to point something out.

30 years ago, nuclear provided 20% of our electricity. The nuclear plants were operating at something like 66% capacity (too lazy to look up the exact number).

We haven't built any in the states since that time. Energy demand has gone up.

Today, nuclear still provides 20% of our electricity, but only because the plants are running at almost 100% capacity.

This means that going forward, nuclear, which is currently our only large scale carbon free, green house gas free energy source, will go down as a percentage of our overall electric production. That will be replaced not by wind or solar in most cases, but by coal or natural gas. Why? As I've said, nuclear is baseload power. Solar is currently peak power (daytime). Solar thermal storage is being developed to stretch that out a bit, but particularly in the colder, less sunny areas in which nuclear currently provides a lot of power, it will be quite a long time before solar can do anything but complement existing power.

[Zen-like Todd]

Oh, I'm happy to talk about actual research.

But this is about McCain's lip service to the idea of a general plan. As I have already said: let's see the details over the next few weeks.

Lip service is a great start. But until one of the candidates gets real and speaks in more than generalities, nobody has advanced further than Carter. He didn't exactly get very far, and (unlike McCain) few people even doubted that he was serious about it!

Ugh. JFK could reasonably assume that we would use chemical rockets, and he also knew we would use the most brilliant rocket designers on the planet to get the job done, in the form of relocated German scientists and engineers. He knew which agency would spearhead the effort, and he even knew who within the agency would be in charge at the top of the management side and the technical side.

So he had these things checked off in his personal top-level list: the What, the Who, the When, the Why, and the Where. What remained was the very intimidating How: the domain of scientists and engineers. And there was an immense amount of How to be done -- but von Braun had already sketched out the basic needs and requirements for a Moon rocket system at that time. The basic top-level calculations and 30,000-foot technical needs were already known. A small set of basic feasible approaches had already been postulated by von Braun and his team. The next many years were spent incrementally developing ingenious ways to expel tons of incredibly tough devils from the details.

(Sounds a lot like the Manhattan Project, actually.)

That's one hell of a head start for JFK over McCain, who thus far has the Why (of course) and a When that's far enough in the future to appear completely arbitrary. He doesn't really even have a clear definition of the What, has no idea about the Who ("industry?" ok...) and Where, and has said absolutely zero of substance about the all-important How.

Where? All over the Country.

Who? Power companies, solar manufacturers, wind turbine manufacturers.

How? We have nuclear know how already. Solar costs are coming down year over year. They simply need incentives to kickstart the market. Same with wind. Clean coal will be implemented by existing coal plants to deal with upcoming carbon caps.

It's all known. It's doable. It's been done before. He is far, far, far ahead of JFK on this point. You have it completely backwards.

They are not at all the same thing. Not even close. Not in reach, not in ambition, and not in realistic content. Even Carter took a researched stab at the What and How: "clean coal."

Agreed. And not just because the technology wasn't there: because the critical mandate and the reasonable assessment of cost weren't there either. For any other president, it would have sounded like McCain's situation now, actually: lip service.

More like 30 years. It's certainly enough to say "clean coal" isn't the answer. So there's a "not-How." But it's not enough to come up with an overarching plan for the next 17 years of energy development. Turns out that energy is going to take more than 30 years of post-Carter-era research to figure out. That's no excuse not to keep working on it, but McCain (and Obama, if he ends up jumping in with similar rhetoric) is saying he wants to put the cart before the horse.

No he's not. Not at all. He simply understands that for very obvious reasons, all of these things need to be addressed.

Agreed. The energy effort will stop when energy -- whatever the source -- is suitably cheap for most people. (Which is still is, even today. The future may be a different story.)

I think there's great promise in nuclear, given that we really have made order-of-magnitude strides in nuclear safety and engineering since the 1960s and 1970s. I agree with the idea of increasing nuclear's contribution to the energy picture (among other contributors), even though it seems to be a political impossibility and this is just the latest round of yay-nuclear talk from a presidential candidate.

It's all hot air, until someone actually produces this phantom realistic plan. Shoe me the real How.

Money, incentives, credits, loan guarantees, permits and pricing/caps on carbon. Pretty straightforward.

[Zen-like Todd]

Oh, and one more thing for those who think he's putting his eggs in one basket.

Nuclear, Wind, Biomass/Ethanol, Solar, and Storage are the icons in that header. Shocker.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Sorry Zen this is about as worthless as jack and **** and jack left town.

"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."

BTW We only have about 75 years worth of Uranium which a nice little chunk is tied to russia and mongolia. So you basically are saying we should just maintain the status quo and fall in line with the rest of the world although were going to have to deal with the same stupid ass problem again.

[Zen-like Todd]

Sorry Zen this is about as worthless as jack and **** and jack left town.

BTW We only have about 75 years worth of Uranium which a nice little chunk is tied to russia and mongolia. So you basically are saying we should just maintain the status quo and fall in line with the rest of the world although were going to have to deal with the same stupid ass problem again.

No, I'm not. Let me guess, you did about five seconds of googling for antinuclear propaganda? Reprocessing and breeder reactors ring a bell? Thorium ring a bell? No? Shocker.

The only thing worthless in this thread has been your contribution.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Ohhh pretty headers... put a bow on **** its still ****. How about you admit that nuclear is same retarded path we went down with oil?

Real R&D involves 150 billion dollar investment not some tax credits.

[DjTj]

Oh, and one more thing for those who think he's putting his eggs in one basket.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of the radioactive green eggs ...

This came up in the "Do we need a Manhattan Project" thread, but I really think this is the wrong approach. It's like slapping the word "War" on the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror." McCain is trying to evoke memories of the Manhattan Project or Kennedy's promise to go to the moon, but this really isn't the same kind of endeavor. It's not even really the Human Genome Project where there is an easily definable scientific goal.

Where? All over the Country.

Who? Power companies, solar manufacturers, wind turbine manufacturers.

How? We have nuclear know how already. Solar costs are coming down year over year. They simply need incentives to kickstart the market. Same with wind. Clean coal will be implemented by existing coal plants to deal with upcoming carbon caps.

It's all known. It's doable. It's been done before. He is far, far, far ahead of JFK on this point. You have it completely backwards.

So what you're talking about isn't really any bold new technology; it's really just the government subsidizing the building of more power plants ... with an eye towards battery technology as our silver bullet.

If there's any part of the plan that feels like a grand national project, it's the $300 million prize for a new battery.

I would say, however, that the rocket technology when JFK made his promise was further along than our battery technology is today ... that might be why Kennedy set a 7-year deadline and McCain is setting a 17-year deadline. And Kennedy of course also have more of a concrete plan than simply offering a cash prize. He had an agency, NASA, that was part of the government and already working towards the general goals of space exploration.

If McCain really wanted to embark on a grand scientific project, he could create a government agency or maybe just a government research center dedicated to battery technology and hire some top chemists and engineers to work there ... but the problem is that we don't really know exactly what technology is going to give us the next-generation batteries. With the atomic bomb, we knew uranium fission was the goal, and Oppenheimer could direct the entire project with that singular goal in mind. With the moon, we knew that we just needed bigger and bigger rockets and we had a basic space capsule design. Here, it is very much open-ended, and it's less of a "project" and more of an aspirational goal ... it evokes Kennedy, but it is definitely a step behind.

Money, incentives, credits, loan guarantees, permits and pricing/caps on carbon. Pretty straightforward.

When it is put in those terms, it sounds less like a Manhattan Project and more like a tweak in energy policy ... it doesn't quite evoke a sexy image like going to the moon, and I'm not sure McCain is the right salesperson for it. I predict that this radioactive green logo doesn't last very long as a part of the campaign.

[Zen-like Todd]

Ohhh pretty headers... put a bow on **** its still ****. How about you admit that nuclear is same retarded path we went down with oil?

Real R&D involves 150 billion dollar investment not some tax credits.

So in the face of facts and knowledge, you're just going to keep repeating your same ignorant tripe?

Showing a lot of character CCS.

[Zen-like Todd]

I'm not sure I'm a fan of the radioactive green eggs ...

This came up in the "Do we need a Manhattan Project" thread, but I really think this is the wrong approach. It's like slapping the word "War" on the "War on Drugs" or the "War on Terror." McCain is trying to evoke memories of the Manhattan Project or Kennedy's promise to go to the moon, but this really isn't the same kind of endeavor. It's not even really the Human Genome Project where there is an easily definable scientific goal.

That's all semantics and spin, is it not? It's a coherent, aggressive energy policy with a high priority. The goal is to transform our energy consumption in terms of energy independence and pollution. Call it whatever you like.

So what you're talking about isn't really any bold new technology; it's really just the government subsidizing the building of more power plants ... with an eye towards battery technology as our silver bullet.

If there's any part of the plan that feels like a grand national project, it's the $300 million prize for a new battery.

It's a set of bold new technologies. As far as battery storage, that really only applies to the transformation of our transportation infrastructure, not the production side of the equation.

I would say, however, that the rocket technology when JFK made his promise was further along than our battery technology is today ... that might be why Kennedy set a 7-year deadline and McCain is setting a 17-year deadline. And Kennedy of course also have more of a concrete plan than simply offering a cash prize. He had an agency, NASA, that was part of the government and already working towards the general goals of space exploration.

More like it was a Cold War pissing contest where we didn't have to achieve affordable, highly repeatable infrastructure.

If McCain really wanted to embark on a grand scientific project, he could create a government agency or maybe just a government research center dedicated to battery technology and hire some top chemists and engineers to work there ... but the problem is that we don't really know exactly what technology is going to give us the next-generation batteries. With the atomic bomb, we knew uranium fission was the goal, and Oppenheimer could direct the entire project with that singular goal in mind. With the moon, we knew that we just needed bigger and bigger rockets and we had a basic space capsule design. Here, it is very much open-ended, and it's less of a "project" and more of an aspirational goal ... it evokes Kennedy, but it is definitely a step behind.

When it is put in those terms, it sounds less like a Manhattan Project and more like a tweak in energy policy ... it doesn't quite evoke a sexy image like going to the moon, and I'm not sure McCain is the right salesperson for it. I predict that this radioactive green logo doesn't last very long as a part of the campaign.

So basically, energy production isn't as sexy to you as sending a man to the moon. Is that a basic summary of your post?

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Eh? Ignorant. Hardly, rather, true bravery would be a man that had the cajones to say our country is going to figure out how to have true energy independence through that it's bitsy helium and hydrogen exploding ball in the sky.

But, then again that would require someone to do research. We don't want a capitalist doing research into a product that could sustainably fufill needs right? Wheres the money in a non-limited product?

[Zen-like Todd]

Eh? Ignorant. Hardly, rather, true bravery would be a man that had the cajones to say our country is going to figure out how to have true energy independence through that it's bitsy helium and hydrogen exploding ball in the sky.

But, then again that would require someone to do research. We don't want capitalist doing research into a product that could sustainably fufill needs right? Wheres the money in a non-limited product?

He's been mentioning solar all week. Again, you're just ignorant on the subject. You're rambling. You haven't even read the thread. And if you're referring to me doing research, you'll see that I've discussed and researched solar for YEARS.

Have some respect for yourself CCS. You're making yourself look really bad here.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

I just showed you your own quote that referenced small incentives towards alternative research. But, I guess maybe when I look at a 150 billion dollar investment in comparison to some tax credits maybe it just looks to much like pocket change.

But, again please explain to me the benefits of burning up resources on our planet vs. using resources of a local star thats got a life of o 500 million years.

Just mentioning solar doesn't cut it todd. His vision is nuclear clean and simple.

Oh

I said someone not YOU. It makes things read a little bit differently.

[Zen-like Todd]

I just showed you your own quote that referenced small incentives towards alternative research. But, I guess maybe when I look at a 150 billion dollar investment in comparison to some tax credits maybe it just looks to much like pocket change.

But, again please explain to me the benefits of burning up resources on our planet vs. using resources of a local star thats got a life of o 500 million years.

Just mentioning solar doesn't cut it todd. His vision is nuclear clean and simple.

His "vision" is clearly, obviously, and directly stated. It is diverse, and complete, and serves short, medium, and long term energy development needs. It "cuts" it. At this point you are essentially lying in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary because you don't have an argument. It's pretty offensive. Stop wasting my time. I'll gladly have a rational, logical conversation on the topic. But I'm not going to sit here and watch you say "is toooooooo" without anything to back it up just to try to save face.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

nevermind... waste of my time arguing -- lets just let the New Zealanders develop new solar technology. And we'll continue our backwards slide on the tech curve.

http://www.gosunsolutions.com/home/content/view/46/2/

[DjTj]

So basically, energy production isn't as sexy to you as sending a man to the moon. Is that a basic summary of your post?

Yes, not as sexy, and therefore not as groundbreaking on the one hand (just building more infrastructure), and not as focused on the other hand (an amorphous goal of a better battery).

I suppose my real prediction, as I said earlier in the thread, is that Obama will propose a very similar energy policy in a few weeks or months, and this won't be much of an issue in the campaign.

It's just incredibly obvious what we need to do in the abstract ... we need more ways to generate power, and we need new technology to be developed. Everyone is in support of those things, and by November, the only difference between the candidates on this issue will be a few minor details.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

fact is solar is anti-republican by nature. research into provides cheap and affordable power. thats a no no.

[Zen-like Todd]

fact is solar is anti-republican by nature. research into provides cheap and affordable power. thats a no no.

That's probably one of the dumbest things I've read on this board in years.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

That's probably one of the dumbest things I've read on this board in years.

think so? i can show you numerous examples of big business putting out an inferior product for the sake of increasing revenue. nuclear is just another example and youre falling in line. way to go pod person.

[Zen-like Todd]

think so? i can show you numerous examples of big business putting out an inferior product for the sake of increasing revenue. nuclear is just another example and youre falling in line. way to go pod person.

Oh, I know so. It was a moronic statement. Why? One, you assume all people are the same. You attribute some abstract random stereotypical blanket negative statement to an entire party. You then assume that McCain inherents all of these traits. That's moronic right there. Really moronic. Further, implicit in the statement is that you feel that democrats don't suffer from the same defects. Truly moronic. Affordable power drives economic growth. It's a VERY republican ideal. It is precisely why the current president tried to avoid capping or taxing carbon. Essentially the exact opposite of your suggestion.

Really, truly, completely moronic.

[Mad Mike]

This pledge is addressed to all concerned -- to those abroad whose power flows from an accident of geology, and to you, my fellow Americans, whose strength proceeds from unity of purpose.

That's a powerful statement. :applause:

[ChocolateCitySkin]

if you don't want to be associated with negative stereotypes then be affliated with a differentparty. The fact is that your party looks bought and paid for by big business you can argue till your blue in the face saying that not taxing big business saves the consumer. I see more savings in research into allowing people to be on off the grid.

Kinda like how lobbyist fought real hard to not have higher fuel and emission standards in california so that automotives and oil companies could continue raking in the money. Really looking out for the little guy. Your parties ideals are just that ideals.

[GibbsFactor]

Yes, not as sexy, and therefore not as groundbreaking on the one hand (just building more infrastructure), and not as focused on the other hand (an amorphous goal of a better battery).

I suppose my real prediction, as I said earlier in the thread, is that Obama will propose a very similar energy policy in a few weeks or months, and this won't be much of an issue in the campaign.

It's just incredibly obvious what we need to do in the abstract ... we need more ways to generate power, and we need new technology to be developed. Everyone is in support of those things, and by November, the only difference between the candidates on this issue will be a few minor details.

I just hope which ever one wins this thing is able and willing to follow through and implement something immediately.