| Welcome to NationStates - Canada. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| McCain's running mate | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Aug 29 2008, 10:48 AM (928 Views) | |
| jDELIGHT | Aug 31 2008, 04:38 PM Post #21 |
|
Fun is the only noise you should hear
|
I was once a McCain supporter. But not now. He has supported enforcement first immigration policies, switched his view on reproductive rights and has voted with Bush the majority of the time... in the last eight years. He has lived a long political life after Vietnam, and I for one, choose to look at that, as well as his younger life in judging what I see as a change for the worse in him. edited |
|
A 21-Skwerl Salute for the Dizzy Twirling Hippy Chick! "Your only true land based hope are aerodynamically correct goats." JT | |
![]() |
|
| jDELIGHT | Aug 31 2008, 04:45 PM Post #22 |
|
Fun is the only noise you should hear
|
She supports opening up and drilling. That is clear, and even if she doesn't play the politics in the same way as her colleagues, the bottom line is she supports the businesses who lobby for just those kind of projects. Oil companies don't care if you break a social date, refuse to return their calls, or try to take advantage of their income, as long as you let them do what they want, which is ultimately, drilling. |
|
A 21-Skwerl Salute for the Dizzy Twirling Hippy Chick! "Your only true land based hope are aerodynamically correct goats." JT | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 31 2008, 05:34 PM Post #23 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
if the united states can drill in its own country, prices would lower, which is very good indeed. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Omnivorous | Aug 31 2008, 05:57 PM Post #24 |
|
The AntiEss
|
I think the US produces the third highest billions of barrels of crude oil in the world; it's not drilling more, it's using less. I don't know if operations in the Gulf of Mexico have regenerated after Katrina but to my knowledge they are still drilling quite a bit. |
# of points: -2Department of Immigration Member
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Aug 31 2008, 08:02 PM Post #25 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
we need to end biofuel, corn is needed for food, which is going up in prices, and we could import sugar cane from brazil. We need to drill in alaska until some other new fuel source(hydrogen/nuclear) is found. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Lorelai County | Sep 1 2008, 03:28 AM Post #26 |
|
Stanley Cup Champ
|
I really would like to write Omnis post on a big board with highlighted color and flight the message around the world with a (ecological) ähm zeppelin. Also good news for ecological and also economical energy politics (just a few days ago): Oerlikon Solar managed to build a new very thin solar-collector. It surprisingly need a lot less of resources to build it. A few steps and solar will reach netparity (Is this a right term in English). There is also a project to improve the europe-wide energy net. First with modern nets it is able to reduce the losses by transportation. And second they want to balance the fluctuation in alternative energy by it. E.g. solar energy from the south of Spain complemented by wind energy from the North Sea. I have to look but there is somewhere laying in my room an article about an extension of the net to Nord Africa. Since there are different conditions in the Nord Africa deserts you can build other kinds of solar plant with a better return. I also heard there are special wind/waterwave plant in test in Scotland. Please don’t get me wrong. I know of the current disadvantages of alternative energy. And I also don’t like to sit in the dark in my living room. Fortunately we have researchers and smart people who can solve that. Nuclear seems to be the currently only real short-term solution, if a big amount of energy demand has to be covered. But beside of the disadvantages of nuclear energy, it is also not renewable. Therefore we have to get a solution here to… something in middle/long term. Btw: I totally agree with KK that biofuel is under the current world situation not really an option. Population of 6.7 billions and fast rising… Higher demand of meat… But that’s another story to fill books about it. |
---->
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 1 2008, 10:42 AM Post #27 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
i think mccain was acting like a true american durin gustav and his helpin victims an all that, i think obama is gonna go down in the polls now HUZZAH! |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Sep 1 2008, 02:08 PM Post #28 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
I think the US should do what the UK is doing. They're building huge wind farms out at sea, which will, in about 20 years, account for anything between 10% and 20% of the UK's total energy. Also, the US should leave Alaska pristine. Importing biofuels from Brazil will drive food prices up there and the Amazon rainforest will suffer as greedy third world farmers try to bleed the US dry. The only short term solution is nuclear power stations, but I'm not too keen on those. As for what DGS said about Palin - right on my man (or woman)! I'd kiss you, but you're conservative and would probably shoot me for kissing a dude/unmarried woman :lol: I kid!jD was right about women voters, they're not gonna vote McCain-Palin just because there's oestrogen in the mix :rolleyes: |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Omnivorous | Sep 1 2008, 03:11 PM Post #29 |
|
The AntiEss
|
![]() I kind of understand what you mean by net parity. A solar panel system in North Africa would be wonderful, the sun is higher in the sky for the whole year (more than in the Californian deserts, which is the only place I can think of that has more than a few solar panel systems) so much more energy would be used. To think that the Arabian countries are exporting all of their oil - perhaps a super-rich Sheikh will seek to make money from solar energy alongside oil? I sometimes use a torch which uses the magnetic field of a coil and a magnet to generate a current ![]() Nuclear gives us more time. Continuing on petrol and gas will give us a lot less time to develop efficient forms of already available renewable energy sources than nuclear power will. I just found out... her teenage daughter is pregnant. Outside of wedlock. Of course this will upstage McCain in the media. SHOTGUN WEDDING!
|
# of points: -2Department of Immigration Member
| |
![]() |
|
| Delta Golf Sierra | Sep 1 2008, 06:17 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Liberalian Ambassador to Canada
|
I'm a dude! ![]() How about a high five instead?
|
![]() |
|
| Ess | Sep 1 2008, 07:53 PM Post #31 |
|
twirling hippy chick
|
Just watched a show about this a couple days ago! Very cool! This particularly interested me: http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sit...fo/wavecase.htm |
![]() WOW Canada is a Wonderland of enchantments~Bobert Ess is the Chuck Norris of NS Canada, so anything's possible.~Redundancies The hippy chick is Canada's coolest! ~Fiddy HappinEss ~Matilda | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 1 2008, 08:59 PM Post #32 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
nuclear power is wonderful it can power AIRCRAFT CARRIERS to the ends of the earth on few drops of oil! ITS THE FUTURE AND BEYOND!!!! WoooooOOOOOoooooooooooo! Hydrogen is equally beneficial, i think that a very good idea would be undersea current power stations, and that idea is okay for awhile, any yall know of t-boone picken plan? It's quite good, really. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Lorelai County | Sep 2 2008, 06:08 AM Post #33 |
|
Stanley Cup Champ
|
Yes Was exactly talking about those kinds. Hope energy politics will now go in a direction of more local optimized and ecological renewable way.Well to the nuclear power… yes and no. While I think we can cover the short-term demand in industrial country only by nuclear plants, there are too many negative side effects on the use of this technology, it isn’t really a an option as a future (middle/long-term) solution. With the negative side-effects I’m not solely referring to the radiation, nuclear waste and possible worst case scenarios like Tschernobyl. Also problematic are the not so intensely discussed little damages like the latest incident in France. Not to forget are the ecological and economical problems in the gaining of resources like Uran and Plutoniam. Beside those resources are also not renewable and not everywhere in the world existed as a resource. Also a problem is the constant little failures in nuclear plants without an impact on human and environment. Those are usually not known or do not attract the attention of the public. However it shows that this technology is not so save like the lobby makes us believe. Currently not but one of the major future problems concerning nuclear energy is the world-wide increase of energy demands in non industrial countries. While nuclear technology is today even usable for poor/not high-tech countries, the used technology there is too old or does not comply with the necessary safety requirements. This is either caused of lack of resources/money or the lack of knowledge. Those nuclear plants are the real ticking bombs and yes they will affect the whole world when they blow up. (AKW Map: Not sure if it's complete) Another problem is the misuse of such nuclear plants as a way to access/research for nuclear weapons. I guess Northkorea is as an example the most famous fellow here. To the Aircraft Carriers… Yes KK I don’t think nuclear power will be replaced here in near future. Nuclear Energy has some major advantages concerning special requirements the military has. But let us not forget while nuclear power remains an important technology for the military, this doesn’t apply for the civil use. The requirements/conditions of the civil use of energy are totally different. I think also hydrogen is something useful. However it’s only a preferable medium of the energy not really an energy source. We have to produce it with an intense amount of energy (nuclear / water / termal…???). If you are interested in Hydrogen you might have a look at the Island government energy politics. It is very interesting and extremely progressive in this kind of technology. |
---->
| |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Sep 2 2008, 06:33 AM Post #34 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
I can manage that, *hi-5* As the for the nuclear question...I'm in two minds. I don't want the pollution and having to export our nuclear waste for stack it up under some village in the midlands, but on the other hand it will provide stable and cheap energy for the next 50 years or something. The current PM, Gordon Brown, has stated he wants Britain to get more nuclear plants. The French have the most efficient and safe nuclear plants in the world, but they also have the space to store nuclear waste, the UK doesn't have storage space, hence why we had to export most of our oil. Finland's government have said they would take Britain's nuclear waste but the EU said, "Non!" which means naturally the Finnish broke under the pressure, and the British government bent over for *another* ass-blast off Europe *mumble, moan* Anyways...ooh my phone says 12:34 hang on...that's not on WST ![]() EDIT: The best form of energy is in Iceland - geothermic. It's safe, reliable, oh yes, and guaranteed for the next 1 billion years Why doesn't the US build more dams, like Hoover
|
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 2 2008, 07:07 AM Post #35 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
damming is what made new orleans so dangerous, and chernobyl was caused by russian incompetence, and malmaintenence. A lot of "nuclear disasters" kill noone like the three mile incident. the United states should start extensive research in hydrogen and another quite interesting power(if harnessed succesfully) anti-matter, even the smallest particle could give enough power to level a city, but of course, people'd be scared to death..... Damming is good for some communities, but nio, for others it'd ruin their way of life. I think that a long term solution would be solar power, if you can find the perfect solar panel, then you wont need farms to succesfully, and efficiently make power from it. Wind farms take up a lot of land still, and seem more of a long, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggggg term solution for when we solve the energy crisis (if even temporarily). |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| the land | Sep 2 2008, 06:40 PM Post #36 |
|
Just another mile
|
The problem with damming and wind farms is that it often destroys the natural ecosystem. For example, if you dam a fast running river, there could be species of animals that would become more vulnerable to predators if they didn't have the fast moving water. Many ecosystems have a very fragile balance, and if you disrupt one part, it could have unforeseen consequences farther down the food chain. As for the wind farms, they can change are currents in the area, and probably replace forests, or other natural habitats. |
|
You Don't Take Time out of Life for Music, You Take Time out of Music for Life~Unknown | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 2 2008, 07:28 PM Post #37 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
damming is okay once the natural world adapts to it, like the first dam in idaho probably sent a few animals packing, but now if the area went without it, then it's ecosystem would die. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Pez201 | Sep 2 2008, 07:37 PM Post #38 |
|
New and improved
|
Nuclear, hydro and coal form base load electricty with involves: * high capital to build * low running costs * can't easily change output * can be operated for decades * can put out huge amounts of energy Oil and gas form... well, they form something else. I don't know the technical name. Anyway: * medium capital to build * can come online in a matter of minutes * can easily change output * high running costs * huge amounts of energy wouldn't be cost effective Wind and solar form peak load: * little capital to build * always online (weather permitting) * can't produce much power * no cost to run (just maintenance) Make of the above info what you will. ![]()
The currents are very strong to being with, and the turbines are usually too far apart to affect each other. I visited one several months ago and there was no difference in wind from near the turbines, as compared to away from the turbines. |
|
"I never said i was the first person..yesh. I admit Pez was the first one to throw a goat" - Fin Leader of the Canadian Fat Whale Party from 21/5/08 - 29/8/09 and from 1/8/09 when his 48 hour brain fuzz cleared up.
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Sep 2 2008, 08:03 PM Post #39 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
The USA can afford nuclear power and hydrogen, but i think that they should help put forth a program of education for the public to use their own (miniature) solar panels to power their house, but you must remember, EVERYONE, people work at oil, and gas power plants, and people work for the electrical companies, we need to keep them working too, so we dont lay off people. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| the land | Sep 2 2008, 08:04 PM Post #40 |
|
Just another mile
|
apparently they also create a lot/some noise. My uncle has a cabin by a wind farm...he doesn't like it. |
|
You Don't Take Time out of Life for Music, You Take Time out of Music for Life~Unknown | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Real Life Politics and Current Events · Next Topic » |






points: -2
---->
:lol: I kid!




Was exactly talking about those kinds. Hope energy politics will now go in a direction of more local optimized and ecological renewable way.
7:25 PM Jul 10