Offshore drilling? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Nuclear energy is only part of the equation to the answer of weening us off foreign oil. Nuclear is incredibly expensive, not with the fuel part which proponents seem to focus on, but building, maintaining and security is serious money. Nuclear, along with others like solar, wind etc. etc. are the answer. Carter made it a priority when he was in office, he seen first hand along with everyone else that lived then, of how dependent we were on foreign oil and what it could do to us. I think I read somewhere that up until Carter took office, we got about 20 percent of our electricity from oil generation, then it went all the way down to 3% after he left. Those tax-cuts for energy efficient houses started under Carter, then the fuel standards that were saving millions of barrels of oil were his product. Then Reagan comes in, guts programs like the Solar Energy Research Institute and cuts budgets for them dramatically(think it was 130 mil, cut down to 30 mil for example for one of them)...that set us back so far, it's insane.

---

Once you have the facilities in place, nuclear energy is cheaper and, if handled correctly, cleaner than most any other viable energy option. It's a much different animal than it was 20 years ago.

What the global warming aspect? The plants warm the water used to cool the things a great deal! Raise the temp of a bay 3 degrees.:D And see what ins would cost for a nuke plant- or what you can find about the storage fac at Maxie Flatts Ky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

Once you have the facilities in place, nuclear energy is cheaper and, if handled correctly, cleaner than most any other viable energy option. It's a much different animal than it was 20 years ago.

---

Its cheaper because it doesn't take much to fuel it, won't argue that, but to build, maintain, secure and store waste is incredibly expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R13

Its cheaper because it doesn't take much to fuel it, won't argue that, but to build, maintain, secure and store waste is incredibly expensive.

---

It may be, but refineries power plants are more expensive...plus they require resources that are nonrenewable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sup-rbeast

It may be, but refineries power plants are more expensive...plus they require resources that are nonrenewable.

---

I am with you 100% on this one IMHO if we REALLY want to cost effectvly get away from Oil and coal that is the way to go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Counts

I am with you 100% on this one IMHO if we REALLY want to cost effectvly get away from Oil and coal that is the way to go

---

Nuclear power gets a bad rap because of the problems and scares they had in the 80's. The thing is, those things could one day happen again but we definately know much more now about how to handle and contain nuclear power than we did 20-30 years ago.

Yup, clean energy, eh?

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Cancer rates in this town 51% higher than the national average, we have enough causes for cancer and a lot we don't know what exactly is the cause, this is pretty clear...start throwing these up more and more, then more and more will die, another huge draw back. The town is scared to death.

I wonder if there is anything else in the area that might trip something like this. Or if Oak Ridge residents have a similar differential in cancer rates.

Guess more drilling is sorta on "hold".

President Obama, who recently announced plans to open large swaths of the U.S. coast to offshore oil exploration, ordered Salazar to report within 30 days on what new technology is needed to tighten safeguards against spills from deepwater drilling.
"Let me be clear: I continue to believe that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall strategy for energy security," Obama said. "But I've always said that it must be done responsibly for the safety of our workers and our environment."

BP didn?t plan for major spill


Documents: BP didn't plan for major spill - Environment- msnbc.com
BP's plan filed with the federal Minerals Management Service for the Deepwater Horizon well, dated February 2009, says repeatedly that it was "unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities."
And while the company conceded that a spill would "cause impacts" to beaches, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, it argued that "due to the distance to shore (48 miles) and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."
At least 1.6 million gallons of oil have spilled so far, according to Coast Guard estimates, making it one of the worst U.S. oil spills in decades.
"Clearly, the sort of occurrence that we've seen on the Deepwater Horizon is clearly unprecedented," BP spokesman David Nicholas told The Associated Press on Friday. "It's something that we have not experienced before ... a blowout at this depth."
No control plan?
Robert Wiygul, an Ocean Springs, Miss.-based environmental lawyer and board member for the Gulf Restoration Network, said he doesn't see anything in the document that suggests BP addressed the kind of technology needed to control a spill at that depth of water.

I don't think people realize how huge this spill was and what effects it has, of course that's just enviromental whackjob talk:rolleyes:...we continue to fuck up this planet more and more, sucks.