Obama's energy plan is very aggressive, addressing both short term and long term challenges. It is kind of comical that they are trying to paint him as doing little.

I haven't heard any of Obama's plan. I keep hearing that he has one, but have yet to see the details.

I think it's interesting that Obama is proposing $150 million for clean air technology, but isn't sure about nuclear energy.

UnDave, here is a link to the highlights from Obama's website.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

This is exactly why campaign ads (from either side) should never be used as decision-making tools. Their best (and, IMO, only productive) use is to spur voters' own research into the truth about each candidate's stance and record.

This ad is funny and a little sad. Glad to know its not Mc but the RNC. I found some discrepancies with some of the information.

Here you go Dave: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/08/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_28....

I agree with you Jude ... I personally dont know anyone who takes them to heart in my circle of political nerds. Rubbish.

Hope you all had a nice forth!

I think the McCain ad where they showed Obama pouring oil directly onto baby seals went too far!

There is no doubt in my mind that that Sen. McCain’s' plan will yield positive results in the way of supply. However, throwing all options at a problem making it appear like the perfect storm of solutions is in my opinion intellectually dishonest. Not to mention the added dishonesty of Sen. Obamas stance on energy in the advertisement.

If all you're worried about is supply and nothing but supply no matter what the consequence than Sen. McCain is your man. However, if you want supply that is thoughtfully designed to meet our demand while providing a sustainable yield towards the future minus the added fat of environmental degradation than I think Sen. Obama is your man on energy.

Hypno pins the big difference between the plans perfectly.

It is kind of funny coming from the RNC. Saying the DNC candidate doesn't care about oil/environmental solutions. McCain wants to drill offshore even if it is proven that it would have a major impact on the ecosystems surrounding the targets. I think that would be a poor solution to rid ourselves of oil dependency.

I think it's important to note that drilling offshore is not the only part of McCain's plan. To me, the difference in the plans is that McCain's has more of a chance of making an immediate effect. (not offshore drilling, but other parts of his plan), while Obama's plan will take longer to have any influence. To me, McCain's plan has possibilities for immediate effects as well as long term, more environmentally friendly effects. (i.e. solar and wind energy, etc.)

I'm not so sure that Sen. McCain’s plan will be so much more immediate than Sen. Obamas' because if you look at their plans side by side large portions of them over lap each other in agreement. They're both for new age energy there is no question there. However, it is where they disagree that we see the starkest contrast. It is when you get into the realm of perpetuating dependence on oil period regardless of where it comes from and nuclear energy which both take some time too build and implement and have catastrophic dangers associated with them that is the huge difference between them.

"To me, the difference in the plans is that McCain's has more of a chance of making an immediate effect."

What part of his plan would have an immediate effect?

I think nuclear energy would be more immediate than other alternative forms because we already know how to use it.

I wish we had a magical world, and McC's supporters were forced to live in a future predicated on his energy policies, and O's supporters had to live in a future based on his policies. For one year. And then they could come back to the present, and make a decision on how they want to vote.
The McCainites would be wearing Obama'08 buttons.
IMO

I tried shoving corn into my gas tank because they said it was more fuel efficient. Now I have to get a new engine block.

Stupid bio-diesel doesn't work.

Janneth, I can almost guarantee you that I wouldn't.

Rac, were you using whole ears? Try cans of creamed corn.

I knew I should have checked here first. Thanks for nothing.

AHHH! GHOST!

I can guarantee you I wouldn't either Jan. That seems like quite a stretch.

Nuclear energy should be the future - well, more like it should be the NOW.

I'm not necessarily against Nuclear energy; however I do believe that serious advances in containment, safety and waste disposal have to be made before we even think of building new plants on such a wide scale. I would strongly advice that we think about how we're going to land before we jump in this instance.

I don't trust nuclear energy. After Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Love Canal, not to mention terrorism, I think it's too risky.

"however I do believe that serious advances in containment, safety and waste disposal have to be made before we even think of building new plants on such a wide scale. I would strongly advice that we think about how we're going to land before we jump in this instance."

I agree 100% hypno. Nuclear power produces nuclear waste, and we need to figure out what we are going to do with all of that before we move forward.

Secondly, it would take years to build the nuclear plants, not to mention the fight that would errupt over where to put them. I genuinely do not consider nuclear power to be an immediate solution.

I don't consider it immediate, but I consider it more immediate than a lot of other solutions, such as wind power.

I guess immediate was the wrong word to convey what I was trying to say. Short-term would have been better.

I know what you mean lilkimbo there is certainly a lot to sort out here.

Speaking of nuclear waste though the French if I'm not mistaken have found a way to recycle a some of their nuclear waste. I believe that in the future we can improve upon that technology.

IMO, Obama's ideas are all long term. His policies won't help us at any time during his term as president, if he wins. I like McCain's plan because there are both short term components and long term. They both agree in where we need to get, but the paths on how to get there are different.

I'm not sure how nuclear will have an immediate impact, except in sucking up money:

The increasing costs of materials and labor and the weakening dollar on nuclear technology purchases, is having an impact on plans to build new nuclear power plants. In January, the Tampa Tribune reported the electrical utility Progress Energy Florida, which plans to build two nuclear reactors may see costs approach two to three times their original estimate. In Georgia, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported negotiations between nuclear power plant builder Westinghouse and Georgia Power almost collapsed two weeks ago due to new concern over price increases.

San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, January 2007:
"If nuclear is such a good investment, why have no nuclear power plants ever been 100% privately funded? In Dick Cheney’s Energy Policy of 2003, Title IV, subtitle B: New Nuclear Plants authorizes the Department of Energy to provide 50% of the costs to build new reactors and there are NO guidelines regarding interest rates and repayment of these loans -- WE heavily subsidize the building of the plant. We do not share in the profits of the privately owned plant and there is no guarantee our financing will be paid back..."

"If it is so safe, why does provision Title IV, subtitle A: The Price Anderson Act limit the liability of nuclear power plants to $10B. A serious nuclear accident according to Sandia National Laboratories could cost upwards of $300B. TAXPAYERS WILL PAY THE DIFFERENCE."

um, my husband's company is set and ready to build nuclear plants across the country...

Then why don't they? Oh yeah, all those EPA regulations...

I don't think that Obama's plans are all long term. IMO, I think his plans to actively support the development of the green energy sector is FAR more aggressive than McCain's.

The Advanced Manufacturing Fund and National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank will fuel the development and research of the technology and the work force that will be needed to make progress fast. Wind, solar, and geothermal power is already a reality. If we focus and work in an intelligent way, our greatest challenge can become an economic asset.

Darn the EPA. Why can't we just put nuclear waste anywhere we want??

Even if you figure out actual cost, water usage at nuclear plants, CO2 releases and the radioactive waste storage - all are serious issues that need to be factored into just how worthwhile nuclear power is.

____ has a rich legacy through acquisition of more than 60 years of expertise in the nuclear industry, including a pioneering history of firsts. These firsts included the design and construction of the Y12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and engineering and design of Shippingport, the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States. Shaw was also the original engineer/constructor for 17 U.S. nuclear power plants, developed the first U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved Nuclear Quality Assurance Program, and completed the first license application for a spent fuel dry storage facility.

Today, ____ continues that leadership, offering a wide range of nuclear services to commercial and government clients worldwide. We have provided services to 95 percent of all U.S. nuclear plants, and are currently providing services on the only two active restarts in North America.

Demand for nuclear power generating facilities continues to grow, marking the beginning of a global nuclear power renaissance. _____, a pioneer in the nuclear services industry, is poised to serve this dynamic market with a wide range of capabilities backed by a history of achievements.

Actually, we have no solution for nuclear waste. We can only store it and over a long period of time it will decease its potency little by little, but for the feasible future (we are talking hundreds of thousands years) it will still not disintegrate. I think Nuclear energy is an interesting area, but we might simply just be digging our grave somewhere else.

My mother is actually a in charge of the security of a nuclear reactor. I was in one for a school paper report when I was 10.

Ew, Tresjolie that's a tresdifficile job!

Stephley, thank you for that! That was interesting and you made a very good point. The only way people will build these plants is by using taxpayer money. Which I'd be okay with as long as we actually shared the profits.

Wow, that would be a crazy job to have, tres!

Yeah, I know! It is called Director of the quality of security, I believe. But I wouldn't want her job! She has to work with the Government as well as environmental groups to make sure everything is up to par, and nothing shady or questionable is going on. And that the routines are optimal, and that everyone know what to do in case of an emergency. And then some. I don't know how she does all of that and still keeps her home clean and husband fed.

People go on about nuclear energy being clean and a solution to climate change but when you take into account the emissions produced in producing the uranium and shipping it to the plant the whole nuclear process produces more carbon dioxide than some natural gas plants. ( If you want a reference http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/solutions/energ...)

So, even if you ignore the whole nuclear waste issue it's still not an ideal solution.

Interesting, Ella! Thanks for the info!

Whenever I think of nuclear energy, all I can picture is that three eyed fish from the Simpsons. Darn TV rotting my brains. All I can think about is cartoons!

How does McCain plan on funding 45 new nuclear plants. And how rainbow dreamy is it to simply claim that you can end the war within four years and balance the budget?

Stephley, Isn't he going to do it all with out raising taxes, too?

how rainbow dreamy is it to bring our troops home within a year and have Iraq stable and working perfectly under its own government...without us. Pretty rainbow dreamy, wonder who thinks it could happen...O

Well the Prime Minister of Iraq has formerly asked for a time line for withdrawl. The scene is drawing to a close. Let's see what the stage looks like when the lights come back on.

That's right: war won, budget balanced and 45 new nuclear plants all without new taxes in just four years! Obama has never promised perfection in Iraq, just that we won't dedicate the next 100 years to compounding our mistakes.

I'm nervous about the next act Hypno, waiting to see how we'll react to their new determination.

The whole idea of nuclear is good, and seems promising, but then you have to ask, would you want to live by one? It seems all well and good when you are 100 miles from it.

And, the dems, in my opinion, are showing how committed they are to living green with their plans for the DNC.