Issue: Energy: How is Ron Paul as prez going to deal w/energy?

[RP08]

"If you subsidize anything, you get more of it." - Ron Paul

There are ways our government can help us find and implement the best solutions. One of those is to stop using my hard-earned and unconstitutionally-taxed dollars to reward systems that help maintain our dependence on foreign and inefficient energy sources.

We have amazingly brilliant and passionate people out there. Enough that in comparison, the federal government and tax-paid "specialists" aren't even a blip on the radar. Without untouchable "competition" against us, we can and will do marvelous things.

If the technology isn't there, we'll create or perfect it. If the infrastructure isn't there, we'll build it. If it's an idea nobody's thought of yet, we'll think of it.

How did we do all of that so amazingly well before the federal government had its hands in every affair? It's actually somewhat surprising that we've been able to keep this iceburg from flipping for so long as it is.

Look at all the industries that America pioneered yet now don't exist on U.S. soil. Look at all the technologies we've invented that are being done cheaper, better, faster abroad, killing our competitiveness as our dependence on imported goods grows faster than we can possibly imagine. Food even.

I have far more faith in our great people to figure out the best way to do things than I have in the government to do it for us. Honestly, it's more frightening to think about how things will be if we continue to increase our dependence on federal control.

 

[Montana]

Nuclear power is dangerous and only lasts 45 years. Also, disposing of it is very harmful to the earth.

This is all nonsense fear mongering. Coal kills more people every year than have died from American civilian nuclear energy in its entire history. The uranium shells we use in Iraq each contain more energy than an oil tanker. The 45 years figure comes from using just Uranium-235, which comprises only 0.7% of all uranium. The other 99.3% can be converted to a fissionable isotope of plutonium. There are also new reactors that can run on thorium, which is twice as abundant on Earth as uranium. We have enough fissionable material to last for hundreds of years -- certainly long enough to get fusion working in any event. Likewise, the waste problem is only due to our own stupidity. We consider plutonium and other potential fuels as "waste" instead of reprocessing them and using them to generate more power. It's a political issue: If we use plutonium in reactors then we look hypocritical telling other countries not to, but we don't want them making bombs out of it. But it's stupid, because you can design the reactor to generate enough Pu-240 and other reactor grade isotopes that the weapons grade Pu-239 will be inseparable and useless for a weapon. Other than potential fuels, the remainder of the waste is no more dangerous than the various industrial wastes generated by thousands of chemical plants. You know, the sort that process the chemicals needed to make solar panels?

 

[SwordOfShannarah]

Hemp, though very helpful, wouldn't come close to replacing our current oil consumption, which is 24 million barrels a day in the US.

Vacuum energy, if possible on a big enough scale to provide energy to the world, still needs decades of research.

No alternative is going save us from the energy crisis, we have to lower consumption and shrink the economy. Like Ron Paul says, even though he's not directly referring to energy, we are living way outside of our means. People don't like to hear this though, because this means they will have to drastically change everything about how they live their lives in the coming years, including what they do for a living. Everybody except Ron Paul will try to use socialism to solve the problem, which will just make things worse in the long run.

This isn't true. 1 acre of land with Hemp will produce all the fuel needed by an average drive for a year. There are billions of acres of farm able land in the U.S.

Technology has always defined a resource. Before fire, wood was fairly useless, before the car oil was only used to light lamps, computer imaging brings down the cost of silver.. in other words technology will provide a fix if we provide the demand. Lowering consumption isn't correct, it's changing consumption. If we spent 10 billion a month on new energy rather than the war in Iraq we wouldn't even need oil within a few years at most.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Montana, where are all these people with enough capital to build these breeder reactors? Keep in mind America would need about 100 to replace oil and coal consumption.

This isn't true. 1 acre of land with Hemp will produce all the fuel needed by an average drive for a year. There are billions of acres of farm able land in the U.S.

Technology has always defined a resource. Before fire, wood was fairly useless, before the car oil was only used to light lamps, computer imaging brings down the cost of silver.. in other words technology will provide a fix if we provide the demand. Lowering consumption isn't correct, it's changing consumption. If we spent 10 billion a month on new energy rather than the war in Iraq we wouldn't even need oil within a few years at most.

Lowering consumption is the only way to prevent a catastrophe worse than the Great Depression. By all indications worldwide oil production is in decline or about to go into decline. It's happening now and we aren't anywhere near the capability to replace it with some other technology.

I know I keep pimping the site in my signature, but it lays out big picture of how we are headed strait for an energy crisis in the very near future, and there is nothing we can do about it except by drastically changing our lifestyle.