McCain - the Lexington Project

[Zen-like Todd]

if you don't want to be associated with negative stereotypes then be affliated with a differentparty.

That's not how it works. It's your failing, not theirs. Mature as a human being, look at individuals, research the issues, and stop casting about lazy stereotypies.

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.

1) It's not my party. I don't have a party.

2) I don't have to argue until I'm blue in the face. I made my argument 10x over, while you have done nothing but embarass yourself.

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.

Again, your own partisanship betrays you. Grow up, learn that neither party has all the answers, both parties suck, all individuals are not the same, and stop taking the intellectually easy way out.

Now be a man and admit that you came into this thread completely ignorant of McCain's energy policies and you've just been talking out of your ass the entire time.

[JohnLockesGhost]

That's a powerful statement. :applause:

More like gobbledegook.

Are we really unified behind a national "purpose"? What is our national "purpose"?

Incidentally, the idea of strength through common purpose is straight out of Fascist Italy.

[Larry]

He's absolutely killing Obama on this issue right now.

Yep.

If I'm John McCain, I've got a sign on my bus that says "It's $4 Gasoline, Stupid!"

[ChocolateCitySkin]

lol. admit to what that i think his energy model is older than him.

i believe in a compact infrastructure (i live in a city). i used public transportation and walk. and i'/m working on research into using a combination of bim modeling and open source as a means to reducing embodied energy, energy consumption and waste. what i'm discovering is that bim modeling hasn't been successful because of the inherently selfish nature of capitalism. think of it this way microsoft hates firefox so they make it so firefox doesn't work well on their os. now understand that the building industry does the exact same thing. there is no communication between parties -- which leads to change orders and inefficient design.

since you're apparently just like mccain lemme educate you on energy waste.

see that building sector -- thats not going to change with his proposals. investing tons of money into R&D will lower costs on things such as pvs which can then be implemented with proper mandatory regulation. and we can actually begin to dig ourselves out of this antiquated model of just create indefinite power by burning resources.

sad thing is that developing countries have a better chance of implementing these strategies because they don't have an option on energy conservation! nuclear power in essence is doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo under the pretense that tax incentives in some way are going to further research.

what we will witness is the continued failures of our nation to work and address problems progressively. frankly, he's just too old to understand that the way he lived is not a functional model anymore.

Obama, who first set his targets last October, has promised that he would make all new federal buildings 40 percent more efficient than current ones within five years, and carbon-neutral by 2025. He has also pledged to increase efficiency of existing federal buildings by 25 percent within five years and to ensure that the government derives 30 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020 -- none of which McCain has promised to do.

todd sit down

[ChocolateCitySkin]

oooo lookie here are long term goals that might make the country somewhat inhabitable in 30 years

Invest in a Clean Energy Future

* Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.

* Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.

* Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.

* Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.

* Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S

* Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.

* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

[Zen-like Todd]

lol. admit to what that i think his energy model is older than him.

i believe in a compact infrastructure (i live in a city). i used public transportation and walk.

Whoopee do. You want a cookie for living in a city? I live in Manhattan. Eight million people live in NYC. Are they all super de duper magical energy experts, and do they all live there in order to conserve energy? Ridiculous.

and i'/m working on research into using a combination of bim modeling and open source as a means to reducing embodied energy, energy consumption and waste. what i'm discovering is that bim modeling hasn't been successful because of the inherently selfish nature of capitalism. think of it this way microsoft hates firefox so they make it so firefox doesn't work well on their os. now understand that the building industry does the exact same thing. there is no communication between parties -- which leads to change orders and inefficient design.

Great. You're a misinformed communist. I'm having a conversation with a delusional idiot.

Random blather which isn't related, but CCS threw in anyway because he's panicky and desperate

sad thing is that developing countries have a better chance of implementing these strategies because they don't have an option on energy conservation! nuclear power in essence is doing nothing more than reinforcing the status quo under the pretense that tax incentives in some way are going to further research.

That statement was, is, and always will be incorrect.

what we will witness is the continued failures of our nation to work and address problems progressively. frankly, he's just too old to understand that the way he lived is not a functional model anymore.

todd sit down

I've been sitting down during this entire conversation, laughing at your outright stupidity in this thread.

You were owned, are owned, will continue to be owned. You're wasting my time, your time, and the time of everyone else who sees this thread being bumped only to witness your continued displays of ignorance and far worse, an inability to admit that ignorance. Grow a pair, man up, grow up, examine yourself, and admit it before you're 90 and realize you've been a narrowminded fool for your whole life.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

.............

[Zen-like Todd]

.............

Stop spamming. You have trolled, and lost. Go find somewhere else to troll. Perhaps you'll find a really really stupid audience who won't realize you're completely full of it for at least five minutes.

[PeterMP]

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.

You call those details? We'll use a combination of technologies based on solar, wind, nuclear, ethanol and longer term hydrogen. JFK didn't know what kind of chemicals or solid or liquid, and they did consider other proposals.

In terms of agencies, there is this thing called the Dept. of Energy. Think they might be involved in setting an energy policy :doh: They even have a funding apparatus.

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.

The how will be a combination of things as I already discussed. The why and when are settled. Not sure what the what is in this context, and he has as 'who' in that it appears the at least at the top, it'll be Woosley (sp?).

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.

17 years for "independence". With in 5 years we'll see real improvement no matter who is President.

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

As I've already described, he has as much how as JFK did.

[PeterMP]

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.

THERE IS AN AGENCY IN FACT THERE IS A WHOLE DEPARTMENT. IT IS CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

Battery technology is advancing nicely.

First, keep in mind the GM's EV was superior technology to anything on the market, those patents are owned by oil companies, but expire in the next 4 to 5 years. Because of issues w/ Toyota claiming to have developed very similar technology independently and the resulting agreement, we'll see that technology leak out in the next couple of years, and you are going to see the GM Volt plug in and something very similar w the Prius in 2010/2011.

Then of course you have this:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

Several technologies are going to take big jumps in the next ten years and pretty good jumps in the next 4 or so (my wife and I were talking about it tonight how the next President is going to look pretty good at the end of his term (based on some conversations we were having w/ others last night)), including ethanol, battery, and probably solar.

Hydrogen is lagging, but is still ahead of where battery and ethanol were 30 years ago.

JFK knew rockets, but there were several possiblities to power those rockets. We are in a similar situation. There are several technologies that are very close, and we don't know which one is going to leap ahead first, but it is coming relatively soon.

We actually have a big advantage over the moon landing, they did pretty much early on say, we're picking this one and going forward (you couldn't have multiple independent technologies powering your rocket). We don't need to do that.

We don't need a ton of money in basic research. We need incentives to take the final steps w/ some, and something concrete in hydrogen to push it forward to see how feasible it is and catch it up if possible.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Peter I agree with your statements but I see nuclear as a money pit solution. Our tech is so close that with stricter building standards and just pushing the tech envelope a little bit we will be well on our way to independence.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has stated that even if next-generation nuclear plants can be built efficiently, their costs are likely to be two to four times greater than building natural gas, coal or wind plants. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the private firm Standard and Poor’s concluded that investing in loans to build nuclear power plants is an unwise risk. A host of insurance analysts have come to the same conclusion. The last American nuclear power plant to go online, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar, fired up in 1996 after 23 years of construction and billions of dollars of over-budget spending.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780

[Zen-like Todd]

Peter I agree with your statements but I see nuclear as a money pit solution. Our tech is so close that with stricter building standards and just pushing the tech envelope a little bit we will be well on our way to independence.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3780

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has stated that even if next-generation nuclear plants can be built efficiently, their costs are likely to be two to four times greater than building natural gas, coal or wind plants.

This is the nature of nuclear plants compared to fossil fuel plants. Fossil fuel plants have low capital costs, and high recurring fuel costs (coal/gas, of course). Nuclear plants have high initial construction costs, and extremely low comparative fuel costs. As far as wind, it has a sub 50% availability rate, and cannot provide baseload power without storage, which jacks up costs tremendously.

Both the Congressional Budget Office and the private firm Standard and Poor’s concluded that investing in loans to build nuclear power plants is an unwise risk. A host of insurance analysts have come to the same conclusion. The last American nuclear power plant to go online, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar, fired up in 1996 after 23 years of construction and billions of dollars of over-budget spending.

That's due to regulatory issues and interference, nothing else.

Nothing listed is a reason not to add nuclear plants.

[mjah]

Wow, I go away for a few hours and so much happens in here!

Reading through the past few pages, I can't even keep up with the level of rosy-cheeked goofiness in this thread. The conversation seems to have wandered further afield than the last empty promise of sustainable energy. I've heard and seen what McCain has said about energy, and I'm still waiting for something more than glossy, nonspecific castles in the sky. If McCain can't do better than this within maybe 3 weeks, the "Lexington Project" will be a rallying cry for the Republican candidate's futility. And I'm sure plenty of people will be waiting for details, eager to write them down and get feedback from an army of energy experts. We'll see if either of these candidates knows more about energy than McCain knows about economics.

Come back here in five years and we'll talk about how it went. Talk of world-changing energy initiatives from a presidential candidate is worth even less then the hot air it occupies. As I've said twice already -- apparently to deaf ears -- let's see a real plan with specific goals, milestone dates, and a list of what will happen when between now and the scientifically chosen year 2025. Start there and work backwards. Tell me roughly what we would have to achieve in two years. What we would have to achieve in five years. Ten years. Then we'll have something to discuss, and something to measure against. I guarantee you, once you start at 2025 (?) and work backwards, you'll see just how much we would already need to have done -- and haven't done yet.

And if you can't do that (I know I can't), it's because you don't have enough information to say McCain's "plan" is any more specific than Kerry's "plan" to get out of Iraq in 2004. Let's get some real detail and then cross swords over it. Until then, you can't even start to disprove the very reasonable null assumption that it's mere lip service.

And as for the marketing McCain will try and quite possibly fail to wrap around this: all he's going to do is give his opponents a perpetual rallying cry to beat him over the head with. Starting with the derivative nature of the name and the fact that, true to the unfair Republican stereotype, he named his plan of peace after war. In fact, given the demographic of Lexington, MA, I would not be at all surprised to see him receive a letter that reads,

"Mr. McCain? You know that familiar-looking energy idea you're pushing, with the fancy graphic and the dinosaur eggs full of solar and such? Yeah, either make it a real plan that we can support, or don't use our name anymore. Kthxbye."

The idea that McCain is further ahead on his energy plan than Kennedy was when he announced the Moon shot is just... :doh: ...beyond absurd. McCain's proposed plan is easily 100x the scope of Kennedy's, and the answers I'm hearing to the Who question are "uh, the DOE and private industry." How? "Uh, with other energy sources." Yeah, thanks. That's quite a vision.

Hey President Kennedy, how are we going to get to the Moon? "Uh, with a spacecraft of some kind. Maybe chemical rockets, maybe that thing that detonates about 1,000 small nuclear bombs against a reaction plate to make orbit. Maybe ???. You know, a combination of those things. We'll see." Kennedy had far more than that level of specificity to work with. The energy project will be not one, but several orders of magnitude harder than going to the Moon, and America isn't nearly as ready for McCain's plan as we were for the Moon shot. Not technically, and not financially.

...Although I do have to say, there has no better time in our history for us to take a stand on our tendency to spray out debt like a broken fire hydrant. To the extent that the distant future's energy improvements prevent conflict with adversary nations, it's incredibly important to pursue.

And there's a time and a place for it. Unless the human race ceases to exist, someday humankind will be self-sustaining on energy. It's inevitable, in fact. But it takes a special kind of conceit to believe that it somehow can be willed to happen in the near future. And unless McCain has shown us the 0.1% and is holding back the 99.9%, then right now his plan is no better off than Bush the elder's announcement that we were going to Mars.

McCain will (had better) have far more evolved answers than what we have collected in this thread. At that time we can act as if we know anything more about his plan than the lip service he has put forward thus far.

And if it's technically and politically feasible and folks start lining up behind his brilliant plan that apparently nobody has thought of until he came along, then I'll be marching right there with him.

Until then, there's really nothing more to say about it.

Just watch it rise...

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Mjah I posted Obamas stance no comments?

[mjah]

Mjah I posted Obamas stance no comments?

Sorry, I missed it the first time. In the sense of fairness, absolutely.

Here's the excerpt again:

Obama, who first set his targets last October, has promised that he would make all new federal buildings 40 percent more efficient than current ones within five years, and carbon-neutral by 2025. He has also pledged to increase efficiency of existing federal buildings by 25 percent within five years and to ensure that the government derives 30 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020 -- none of which McCain has promised to do.

Same question McCain has to answer: HOW? In detail, how?

Similar situation: vague insistences that it can be done and tops of the ol' hat to technilogies that offer some promise, without really providing specifics.

What Obama proposes might be remotely possible -- I'm not an expert on large building construction so I don't know how far you can take it. But it seems awfully optimistic, don't you think? I can see 20% by improving the major energy consumers: HVAC systems, internal/external lighting technology, and the mind-boggling array of computers and other major power consumers that seem to be left on 24/7 in government buildings. Many existing government buildings are appalling, shoddily constructed pieces of garbage, so the bar may be lower than we think.

But that only goes so far. And it's not a matter of simply changing the sources of energy; he's saying he'll make them 40% more efficient. That means doing the same with nearly half the energy consumption, period, regardless of the source. You don't slap solar panels on the roof to generate 40% of your power, and then say you're more efficient. A 40% improvement in efficiency requires not only technology, but a complete change of human habits in government buildings as well.

Some great advances in building efficiency have been demonstrated, but I just have a very hard time believing that Obama will find a way to leverage those techniques in the next 5 years to cut energy consumption by nearly half vs. the equivalent building being built today. (Actually, he didn't say that -- an important point, but still.) I also question the materiality of it vs. the big energy picture. Buildings consume about 40-50% of our total energy in this country, but Federal buildings are a very small slice of that. Obama is basically calling for an energy demonstrator project, with the hope that everyone else will follow suit once the path is cleared. That's a far cry from sweeping change.

And again, the devil is in the details. I will say this for the Obama bit that you posted earlier: for all its flaws, it's far smaller, more concrete, and more achievable than McCain's plan to reinvent the country. (In the sense that it's more realistic to fly to the Moon in a Cessna than to fly to Mars.) That is both good and bad, and I'm sure I don't need to point out the reasons why.

But neither of these "plans" have much real substance behind them (yet?), and Obama has yet to unleash what certainly will be a response to McCain's "plan." I've been a real downer around here lately, and this post will be no different: we'll see the following exchange.

Guy 1: "I have a plan that will inspire the country to a new era of sustainable energy."

Guy 2: "No, I have a plan that will inspire the country to a new era of sustainable energy."

Guy 1: "Well, mine is more inspiring!"

Guy 2: "No, mine is! And your details B and C are bad!"

Guy 1: "No, they're good! And your detail D is impossible!"

Guy 2: "No, it's feasible! My scientists can beat up your scientists!"

Public: "Ugh." (Votes for the guy they were going to vote for before this discussion began)

Once both candidates have competing plans to inspire the public, both plans will get dragged to the bottom. Especially when both plans overpromise and make themselves easy targets for the other guy.

[ChocolateCitySkin]

Okay, I brought up building efficiency because ignored by most occupies that 75% little pie on energy consumption. And I've been hollering over tighter regulation over what I consider substandard construction. (Granted it earned me the title of communist and fascist from even some of the liberals on the board)

I believe the number is any building over 20k sqft generates heat and needs to have an hvac system. What can be done to improve building efficiency is for one changing the types of windows. Utilizing operable windows during "appropriate" times of the year. Having lights electronically controlled. Having cooling towers and green roofs. Incorporating biomass within the structures themselves. Reducing radiant heat through specific types of window treatment. Changing the actual types of lights in the building.

I imagine that simply putting lights on timers and computer controlling light levels and installing more efficient HVAC systems (I believe they have one that works in cycles and essentially freezes water which is used for the rest of that day)and treated windows could reduce energy consumption by 20%. Adding green roofs and more biomass you could easily do 40%. The big move that would really do it is just getting people to open the window during the fall and spring.

I know that you're saying he's hoping to demonstrate and have others step up -- The question is how to you convince someone that the way they are doing something is wrong when it's going to effect their bottom line?

[mjah]

I may be completely off in claiming that a 40% reduction seems unrealistic. :whoknows:

I guess my question would come down to, how much of that reduction is due to such things as energy-efficient construction and improved HVAC, etc., and how much is due to changes in human behavior? I think the former is far more realistic than the latter.

I know that you're saying he's hoping to demonstrate and have others step up -- The question is how to you convince someone that the way they are doing something is wrong when it's going to effect their bottom line?

As soon as money comes into play, it's in play to stay. You have to find a way to make the change either an improvement to the bottom line, or a politically unavoidable eventuality that doesn't hit the bottom line very hard or can be made to look like a push.

[Destino]

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.

And it comes from a republican leaving me no reason what-so-ever to believe any of the good alternative stuff will take place. All I see is the anti-anviroment party trying to ramp up nuclear and coal plants by promising to "try" some of the other stuff. They've been trying to do that for years and now I'm supposed to believe the GOP went green?

I'll believe it when I see it.

McCain's plan is like a democrat promising to cut corporate taxes if they'll fund his super expensive program. You know what's going to happen and what isn't. At the end of the day they still have to play with congress.

[PeterMP]

The big move that would really do it is just getting people to open the window during the fall and spring.

How many goverment buildings have windows that can open? I've never worked in an office where I could open my windows, and I believe that one of the reasons they build them like that is for effeciency (you don't get some guy that likes his room warm opening the window when you're trying to blow out AC to keep the building cool, and you don't get some guy that likes his room cool opening the window when you are trying to blow out heat to keep the building warm).

[PeterMP]

And it comes from a republican leaving me no reason what-so-ever to believe any of the good alternative stuff will take place. All I see is the anti-anviroment party trying to ramp up nuclear and coal plants by promising to "try" some of the other stuff. They've been trying to do that for years and now I'm supposed to believe the GOP went green?

I'll believe it when I see it.

McCain's plan is like a democrat promising to cut corporate taxes if they'll fund his super expensive program. You know what's going to happen and what isn't. At the end of the day they still have to play with congress.

The difference is McCain has proposed laws for carbon caps/trading that would in fact have positively affected conservation and alternative energy. No other GOP canidate has ever done that. Is the whole GOP gone green? No. Is McCain pretty green? yes.

[PeterMP]

The idea that McCain is further ahead on his energy plan than Kennedy was when he announced the Moon shot is just... :doh: ...beyond absurd. McCain's proposed plan is easily 100x the scope of Kennedy's, and the answers I'm hearing to the Who question are "uh, the DOE and private industry." How? "Uh, with other energy sources." Yeah, thanks. That's quite a vision.

Hey President Kennedy, how are we going to get to the Moon? "Uh, with a spacecraft of some kind. Maybe chemical rockets, maybe that thing that detonates about 1,000 small nuclear bombs against a reaction plate to make orbit. Maybe ???. You know, a combination of those things. We'll see." Kennedy had far more than that level of specificity to work with. The energy project will be not one, but several orders of magnitude harder than going to the Moon, and America isn't nearly as ready for McCain's plan as we were for the Moon shot. Not technically, and not financially.

So Kennedy saying NASA (w/ private industry making many of the components and ) was going to run the space program to go to the moon, and that is somehow superior to McCain saying that the Dept. of Energy would over see a a massive over haul in our energy production (w/ private industry making many of the components and technology)?

Really, please, explain that to me.

For the rest, as I've already pointed out, there were multiple types of chemical rockets so somebody like you living at the time, would have been screaming, "Give me the details. What kind of chemical rockets?"

The big difference is for energy it really is acceptable to say that I don't know what the exact mix is, but we are going to use this combination of things, which are pretty much independent because it can work. To say we are going to some combination of pretty much independent chemical rockets to get to the moon wouldn't have worked. So in some sense the objective is much more simple because you don't have to tie yourself to one technology EVER much less early on. You can use the combination, see what developes, and modify the plans.

Would it be nice if he came out with some more details? Sure.

Would it be stupid to say we are going to do X, Y, and Z, which leaves you completely shut off form developing technology over the next couple of years? Yes.

Realistically, is he any more short of details when Kennedy announced we are going to the moon? No.

***EDIT***

The fact of the matter is we can produce as much electricity as we want from nuclear (I don't like the idea, but the technology is certainly there). Battery technology is already to the point that it could be used to greatly decrease oil consumption for energy in the foreseeable future (GM and Toyota will both have cars that the break even point will be about $40,000 for sell around 2011 that 40 miles on a charge. You can NOW buy a car from Tesla that gets 200 miles/charge for much more money, and battery technology is getting better). Throw in natural gas, gas/diesel from coal, and upping our petroleum out put, and you could substantially decrease our foreign energy requirements once you had the nukes in place. And that completely ignores advances that are already coming on-line in other fields such as ethanol.

[PeterMP]

This is the nature of nuclear plants compared to fossil fuel plants. Fossil fuel plants have low capital costs, and high recurring fuel costs (coal/gas, of course). Nuclear plants have high initial construction costs, and extremely low comparative fuel costs. As far as wind, it has a sub 50% availability rate, and cannot provide baseload power without storage, which jacks up costs tremendously.

That's due to regulatory issues and interference, nothing else.

Nothing listed is a reason not to add nuclear plants.

My understanding is that they want 30 plants by 2030. Right now we get 20% from nuclear you said, assuming we are talking about 30 average plants, and a reasonable increase based on history in our electric consumption, what percent would you estimate (if you happen to know) are we talking about being nuclear by 2030.

I was also wondering if you knew anyting about hydroelectric. Are current hydroelectric facilites operating at max capacity? Is it possible/reasonable to bring more on? Would you expect the % of hydroelectric to drop as we consume more electricity?

[ChocolateCitySkin]

How many goverment buildings have windows that can open? I've never worked in an office where I could open my windows, and I believe that one of the reasons they build them like that is for effeciency (you don't get some guy that likes his room warm opening the window when you're trying to blow out AC to keep the building cool, and you don't get some guy that likes his room cool opening the window when you are trying to blow out heat to keep the building warm).

Any building thats pre-hvac has operable windows: white house old executive and so on. Again its a balance you need to strike and that 20,000 sqft number plays into it. Mechanical + people causes the building to produce heat.

Operable windows lead to greater efficiency if utilized properly. I get that people have different levels of thermal comfort. But thats why we have a value called a chlo or in other words a layer of clothing. The swing in values is only about 5 degrees at most like is it really that big of a deal to put on a sweater if you're cold?

Point being energy reduction relies on the individual to make some lifestyle adjustments. If you go to france for example they have timers on all of their building complexes -- we just leave the lights running. Some of these are very minor things but culturally difficult to accept. And again you run into people like larry who are appalled at the idea of regulating conservation and consider it fascism. Which is a completely dishonest argument.