O'Reilly interviews Obama, part 4

[khronik]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxdUFSmVxc[/YOUTUBE]

Yep, and this time it's energy policy and foreign policy. Definitely worth watching.

khronik Reviewed by khronik on 09-11-2008. O'Reilly interviews Obama, part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAxdUFSmVxc Yep, and this time it's energy policy and foreign policy. Definitely worth watching. Rating: 5

[khronik]

I do wonder why Bill thought Obama was against nuclear power? He's always said that it would be part of the solution, but not the whole solution, and a lot of people on the left are critical of him because of his support of nuclear power. John McCain has criticized him for this too, without any basis for it.

[8182KSKUSH]

I may be wrong, but I believe that he was against nuclear power before he was for it. I don't remember when I heard him say that, but I had thought the very same thing, and noted some time ago that he had changed his position. Maybe I am crazy though?:jointsmile:

[allrollsin21]

you are definitely crazy:thumbsup:, but i have no idea if he switched his stance on this or not. Just felt like sharing...

[8182KSKUSH]

^^:S2:
Yeah I guess they are probably 2 seperate issues.

[andruejaysin]

I'm on a dial-up modem and I don't have the patience to wait for that to load. Which sucks, I'd like to see the whole interview. We don't get fox on our cable where I live (or msnbc for that matter) unbiased news is overated, it takes all the fun out of it. cnn needs more raving lunatics.

[dragonrider]

Maybe I am crazy though?:jointsmile:

you are definitely crazy:thumbsup:, but i have no idea if he switched his stance on this or not. Just felt like sharing...

^^:S2:
Yeah I guess they are probably 2 seperate issues.

Well, yeah, they are separate issues! One is beyond dispute, and the other is open to debate!

I used to be solidly for nuclear power when I was younger because I was fascinated with the enigineering.

Then I went through a time of opposing it, because the waste is extremetly difficult to deal with, and it remains deadly for far longer than human civilization has existed so far. Also, the potential for a truely disasterous accident that kills hundreds of thousands of people and poisons massive areas of land for thousands of years is very real.

If they could find a good way to deal with the waste and make the plants safe from accident, sabotage, terrorism, and war, I would be in favor of nuclear again. It is definitely a highly efficient form of power generation. And the waste is in a solid form that can be processed or stored, not like coal, gas, or oil that produce exhaust that goes into the atmosphere.

We've got enough nuclear fuel for something like 250 years worrth of electricity generation for the whole planet. And if you allow for breeder reactors, which also produce plutonium fuel as a by-product of using uranium fuel, we have enough for something like 10,000 years. (The problem with that is mostly political, because it basically makes fuel for nuclear bombs.) If we could solve these environmental, safety and political problems, I would be behind it 100%.

(Becasue I believe in a future in space, I'd like to save a large part of our nuclear fuel for nuclear rockets. We are definitely going to need the nuclear rockets when we start colonizing the solar system. Hope I didn't just blow all my credibility with that! It's in parenthesis, so it can't be held aginst me!)

The REAL non-polluting future for renewable energy on earth is solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. I was glad Obama stuck by that in this interview, and I am also glad that he is talking about devoting some MONEY to it. We've been talking about it forever, but not putting any resources into it. It's time we committed. There are endless geo-political, environmental, economic, and national security reasons to get off of oil. I'm glad to see Obama is committed to that.

[andruejaysin]

I don't have any objection to nucleur power as long as it's a long fucking way from where I live. However I read in discover magazine (a science mag, not a political one) that it's te second most expensive way to generate electricity, behind solar. Wind on the other hand is the second cheapest, behind coal. No waste, no pollution. And it's happening right now, I see a line of three trucks each loaded with one blade go through town nearly every day.

[flyingimam]

cnn needs more raving lunatics.

they already have one: Glen beck, what a sucker... i mean i rather tune into Oreilys factor than even hear this guy's name... fake copycat!

Then I went through a time of opposing it, because the waste is extremetly difficult to deal with, and it remains deadly for far longer than human civilization has existed so far. Also, the potential for a truely disasterous accident that kills hundreds of thousands of people and poisons massive areas of land for thousands of years is very real.

If they could find a good way to deal with the waste and make the plants safe from accident, sabotage, terrorism, and war, I would be in favor of nuclear again. It is definitely a highly efficient form of power generation. And the waste is in a solid form that can be processed or stored, not like coal, gas, or oil that produce exhaust that goes into the atmosphere.

here is an idea, we have made all this technology of missiles and shuttles and what not... how come we cant find a 100% secure missile that can just shoot these dangerous wastes towards the sun? or any other safe/absorbing location in the universe...

i know i know it will be expensive, but come on... almost all those countries producing nuclear waste, have decent space/missile technologies as well. why cant the capital be spent to find a secure method to have a garbage shoot into space... it only needs political will! money is there, technology is there! and we can even make a big buck as a country to sell such technology or to have it performed for other nations.

[andruejaysin]

they already have one: Glen beck, what a sucker... i mean i rather tune into Oreilys factor than even hear this guy's name... fake copycat!



here is an idea, we have made all this technology of missiles and shuttles and what not... how come we cant find a 100% secure missile that can just shoot these dangerous wastes towards the sun? or any other safe/absorbing location in the universe...

Yeah you got a point about beck, as for launching missiles full of nucleur waste we probably should find a way to keep the shuttle from blowing up first. Last thing you want to do is spread the stuff halfway around the world.