Comments on: FactCheck.Org Defends McCain Against Obama Oil Claims

By: idealthoughts

idealthoughts — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:57:30 +0000

The so called “maverick” has shown himself to be anything but a maverick the way he has embraced the Bush legacy. Any tax break to industry, including big oil is a sham. Yes we need to reform our industrial tax code, but in order to do this you cannot lower taxes and leave remaining tax loop holes that in some cases drop corperate taxes 7-10% on top of the 10% just given them. This is why this country is broke today and why we continue to give breaks, big government contracts to companies that have moved outside the US and hide their profits, while we reward them with “corporate wealfare” contracts. With the recent profit margins enjoyed by the oil companies, they should be paying off our defecit so the country would be more solvent and better off. I mean isn't Iraq about the oil?

By: arbo

arbo — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:26:21 +0000

McAin's plan is to increase Nuke plants to “Reduce our demand for foreign oil” – Tell me, do ANY of our LARGE power plants use any oil as fuel ??? Hummm. Again we have the choice to vote for scary and scary. Until his comments about tire pressure not helping fuel economy and this about Nukes for oil, I actually thought he was the lesser of 2 evils… now I question this.

Tell me better, why neither of them want us to have the option f driving small diesel cars like the rest of the world does ? 60 – 70 MPG and they meet EURO 5/6 – an emission requirement harder than our Tier 2 BIN 5. Every expert will tell you diesel is 40% more efficient and that low tire pressure will cost as much as driving 70 mph vs. 55 mph.

From the Government's site, almost 17% of our e-power is from diesel generators, but these have an average of 17M watts each, vs. 1,015M watts for the average Nuke plant… So I guess the plan is to replace all these small diesel generators in Alaska and other remote locations with HUGE Nuke plants 100 times as large. If their small size and remote location did not make it economical to do a cheaper running coal plant, why Nuke ??? Scary.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri…a/epat2p...

By: idealthoughts

idealthoughts — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

By: arbo

arbo — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

McAin’s plan is to increase Nuke plants to “Reduce our demand for foreign oil” – Tell me, do ANY of our LARGE power plants use any oil as fuel ??? Hummm. Again we have the choice to vote for scary and scary. Until his comments about tire pressure not helping fuel economy and this about Nukes for oil, I actually thought he was the lesser of 2 evils… now I question this.

From the Government’s site, almost 17% of our e-power is from diesel generators, but these have an average of 17M watts each, vs. 1,015M watts for the average Nuke plant… So I guess the plan is to replace all these small diesel generators in Alaska and other remote locations with HUGE Nuke plants 100 times as large. If their small size and remote location did not make it economical to do a cheaper running coal plant, why Nuke ??? Scary.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri…a/epat2p2.html