1 edit
Originally posted by telerionOk, so what about Natty gas and nuclear power?
I have a friend who is an entrepreneur in alternative energy. In my talks with him, it seems like solar is way too costly right now to be used as a large scale solution. Hopefully over time some smart people will find ways to more efficiently capture power from the sun.
So the answer is someday but right now.
At least with solar power you would eventually see a savings as where the costs for what we have now will just keep going up and up. The same could be said of nuclear power. It is expensive up front, but the cost savings over time would be very beneficial and is something I could get behind. Of course, in politics, as it is on Wall Street, short term gain is the name of the game. Greed is very short sided and petty.
Originally posted by whodeyActually, I'm saying the opposite. Politicians do not necessarily have our best interest in heart. That was my point.
But this is happening now. You act as though these guys have our best interest at heart at all times. However, if anyone knows anything about Washington, they know that is not the case. In fact, if the unemployment situation does not turn around soon, come next election the Dems will be out of luck. Then they can turn to the other out of touch party that ...[text shortened]... some time.
So in your humble opinion, how has Obama handled the crisis any better than "W"?
Yes, the Dems will certainly have to contend with high unemployment during the midterm elections. They'll need to keep pushing this as Bush's fault (not that it is) and to keep being patient. The economy is getting better. The stimulus worked. That's the mantra. The Reps will push fiscal irresponsibility. The stimulus was reckless and the economy was going to recover anyway.
Unemployment should decrease again by late 2010 early 2011, and barring some economic disaster the economy should be humming along in 2011 and 2012. That all looks good for Obama. The benefit of coming to office in a recession is that you're almost guaranteed things will look better by the next election.
Originally posted by whodeyIn the case of solar, it just wouldn't recoup enough cost over time to offset the fixed costs of startup. I don't know about the long term gains and costs of natural gas. A lot of people push nuclear, and it does seem like it is a reasonable option. From what I've heard the one issue is disposal of the waste (well, and meltdown but that seems pretty unlikely). I'd be most amenable to moving in this direction though.
Ok, so what about Natty gas and nuclear power?
At least with solar power you would eventually see a savings as where the costs for what we have now will just keep going up and up. The same could be said of nuclear power. It is expensive up front, but the cost savings over time would be very beneficial and is something I could get behind. Of course, in ...[text shortened]... s on Wall Street, short term gain is the name of the game. Greed is very short sided and petty.