Obama Speech [Archive]

Wolfman

24th February 2009, 08:33 PM

Obviously, Obama's not going to be able to give detailed info about his plans. I personally disliked the obvious emotional manipulation in things like bringing the girl who wrote a letter asking for help for her school.

However, Obama's gonna' have to enact policies that are not gonna' be popular, particularly funding cuts to some areas and channeled towards more vital sectors. And he knows its gonna' take years to make significant positive change.

So his goal was to not only brace the American people for these new policies, but to enlist their support. He did something that I think very few political leaders do these days...he gave a long-term vision, and sought to get people to buy into that vision. It wasn't a message of "this is what the government is going to do", it was a message of "this is what Americans are going to do".

And overall, I think he was successful.

Of course, it remains to be seen how well his policies actually work. But personally, I appreciate the change from a President who used fear to support his policies, to a President who uses hope to support his policies.

portlandatheist

24th February 2009, 08:36 PM

Decent speech, and I think he is doing the right thing to try to fix the structural problems in our economy like health care and energy, but I worry that he has bitten off more than he can chew.
His ambition is admirable, but whether he can deliver is yet to be seen.
Fore example, Cutting the deficit in half is something I just can't fathom happening although I would sure love to see it.

peptoabysmal

24th February 2009, 08:37 PM

I kept getting distracted by how much Biden looks like Jeff Dunham's puppet Walter.

Apparently, I'm not the only one...
http://195bottles.blogspot.com/2008/08/just-sayin.html

I am worried about B.O.'s plan being mostly imaginary, but then again I remember when JFK said we would put a man on the moon... :)

gnome

24th February 2009, 08:49 PM

In 1990, would you have thought that the country could eliminate the deficit entirely by the end of the decade?

peptoabysmal

24th February 2009, 08:52 PM

In 1990, would you have thought that the country could eliminate the deficit entirely by the end of the decade?

It was fiction then, it is fiction now. Clinton rode the dot com bubble, then it burst.

Tsukasa Buddha

24th February 2009, 09:05 PM

I liked that he made the focus on health care and education along with the economy. There were details lacking in parts, but I guess that will have to wait. At least he has set goals for himself and is not letting one issue cloud all the other changes that need to be done.

The contrast with Jindal was hilarious. He made a head bob with every point he made and he was talking like a tour guide at first.

MattusMaximus

24th February 2009, 09:45 PM

Anybody got the speech on video? Youtube?

JoeTheJuggler

24th February 2009, 10:09 PM

Anybody got the speech on video? Youtube?

Here's the transcript on CNN. I looks like they've got the video also.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.obama.transcript/

JoeTheJuggler

24th February 2009, 10:14 PM

It was fiction then, it is fiction now. Clinton rode the dot com bubble, then it burst.
You mean we didn't really run a budget surplus in the late '90s?

I don't understand--what was "fiction"?

toddjh

24th February 2009, 11:53 PM

rdaneel

25th February 2009, 12:25 AM

Jindal reminded me of the Lieutenant from "Good Morning Vietnam" trying to convince his boss that there's a "silent majority" of people who liked polka music.

Now I know "rebuttal" speeches are written well before anyone actually hears the Presidents address, but I thought the disconnect between the two speeches really made Jindal look like he was watching some alternate reality.

HarryKeogh

25th February 2009, 12:27 AM

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 05:37 AM

From the speech:
But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy. So I ask this Congress to send me legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America. And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America. A couple of comments:

1) No mention of nuclear power, a technology which does not need "fifteen billion dollars a year to develop." Why not, for FSM's sake? We should be building nuclear power plants now, in every county that is more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault, instead of nonsense like biofuels; has he already forgotten what a boondoggle the ethanol mandate has turned out to be?

2) Carbon cap-and-trade: Here's how it's working in Europe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/23/glover-carbon-market-pollution):

Instead, it's bolstering the business case for fossil fuels.

Understanding why is easy. A year ago European governments allocated a limited number of carbon emission permits to their big polluters. Businesses that reduce pollution are allowed to sell spare permits to ones that need more. As demand outstrips this capped supply, and the price of permits rises, an incentive grows to invest in green energy. Why buy costly permits to keep a coal plant running when you can put the cash into clean power instead?

All this only works as the carbon price lifts. As with 1924 Château Lafite or Damian Hirst's diamond skulls, scarcity and speculation create the value. If permits are cheap, and everyone has lots, the green incentive crashes into reverse. As recession slashes output, companies pile up permits they don't need and sell them on. The price falls, and anyone who wants to pollute can afford to do so. The result is a system that does nothing at all for climate change but a lot for the bottom lines of mega-polluters such as the steelmaker Corus: industrial assistance in camouflage.

"I don't know why industrials would miss this opportunity," said one trader last week. "They are using it to compensate for the tightening of credit and the slowdown, to pay for redundancies."

A lot of the blame lies with governments that signed up to carbon trading as a neat idea, but then indulged polluters with luxurious quantities of permits. The excuse was that growth would soon see them bumping against the ceiling.

Instead, exchanges are in meltdown: a tonne of carbon has dropped to about €8, down from last year's summer peak of €31 and far below the €30-€45 range at which renewables can compete with fossil fuels.

The lesson of the carbon slump, like the credit crunch, is that markets can be a conduit, but not a substitute, for political will. They only work when properly primed and regulated. Europe hoped that the mere creation of a carbon market would drive everyone away from fossil fuels. It forgot that demand had to outstrip supply, and that if growth stops, demand drops too.

There is not much time to rescue the system. Carbon trading remains at the heart of the international response to climate change. Obama backs what Americans call cap and trade. Australia wants to try the same thing. It should be at the heart of a deal at the Copenhagen summit this winter. But both are hesitating, given Europe's mess.

The market must be unashamedly rigged to force supply below demand. The obvious way would be to cut the number of permits in circulation, but in a recession no government will be brave enough to do that. Obama sees cap-and-trade as a source of revenue for Uncle Sam, much as indulgences were once revenue for the Roman Catholic church. Maybe he should check with Europe's finance ministers to see how that's working out for them.

ETA: OBTW, did you notice it's not "global warming" any more, but "the ravages of climate change?" Covering the bases in case we need to sound the alarm for global cooling in a few years - just as we did in the 1970s. Earth's temperature is at the Goldilocks point right this minute - not too hot and not too cold, but just right - and any change in either direction is a "ravage."

Cleon

25th February 2009, 05:57 AM

From the speech:
A couple of comments:

1) No mention of nuclear power, a technology which does not need "fifteen billion dollars a year to develop." Why not, for FSM's sake? We should be building nuclear power plants now, in every county that is more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault, instead of nonsense like biofuels; has he already forgotten what a boondoggle the ethanol mandate has turned out to be?

It doesn't cost $15 billion a year to develop, no. It costs much, much, much more.

To give you an idea:

The two reactors Georgia Power is building are estimated to cost $6.4 billion, $2 billion of which Georgia Power is raising through a lovely rate increase we'll get to see next year.

$6.4 billion, and that's just to expand one existing plant. The original cost to build the plant was about $9 billion--and that was 20 years ago. FSM only knows what the cost to build a plant from scratch would be today.

Again...We're only talking about one plant.

So yeah...That's why not.

The Central Scrutinizer

25th February 2009, 06:05 AM

Could they dispatch with all the annoying standing ovations? I had to turn it off.

I also couldn't stand to look at Nancy Pelosi the whole time. She is such a phony.

Tricky

25th February 2009, 06:17 AM

Could they dispatch with all the annoying standing ovations? I had to turn it off.

I also couldn't stand to look at Nancy Pelosi the whole time. She is such a phony.

The applause was very annoying. I avoided looking at Pelosi by simply listening to it from another room (where I was involved with the more important job of squashing opposition to the JREF moderation team. :D)

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 06:44 AM

It doesn't cost $15 billion a year to develop, no. It costs much, much, much more.

To give you an idea:

The two reactors Georgia Power is building are estimated to cost $6.4 billion, $2 billion of which Georgia Power is raising through a lovely rate increase we'll get to see next year.

$6.4 billion, and that's just to expand one existing plant. The original cost to build the plant was about $9 billion--and that was 20 years ago. FSM only knows what the cost to build a plant from scratch would be today.

Again...We're only talking about one plant.

So yeah...That's why not.This (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html) suggests you're being overcharged.

Regarding bare plant costs, some recent figures apparently for overnight capital cost (or Engineering, Procurement and Construction - EPC - cost) quoted from reputable sources but not necessarily comparable are:
EdF Flamanville EPR: EUR 3.3 billion/$4.8 billion, so EUR 2000/kW or $2900/kW
Bruce Power Alberta 2x1100 MWe ACR, $6.2 billion, so $2800/kW
CGNPC Hongyanhe 4x1080 CPR-1000 $6.6 billion, so $1530/kW
AEO Novovronezh 6&7 2136 MWe net for $5 billion, so $2340/kW
KHNP Shin Kori 3&4 1350 MWe APR-1400 for $5 billion, so $1850/kW
FPL Turkey Point 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $2444 to $3582/kW
Progress Energy Levy county 2 x 1105 MWe AP1000 $3462/kW
NEK Belene 2x1000 MWe AES-92 EUR 3.9 billion (no first core), so EUR 1950 or $3050/kW
UK composite projection $2400/kW
NRG South Texas 2 x 1350 MWe ABWR $8 billion, so $2900/kW
CPI Haiyang 2 x 1100 MWe AP1000 $3.25 billion, so $1477/kW
CGNPC Ningde 4 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 $7.145 billion, so $1786/kW
CNNC Fuqing 2 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 (?) $2.8 billion, so $1400/kW
CGNPC Bailong/Fangchengang 2 x 1000 MWe CPR-1000 $3.1 bilion, so $1550/kW
CNNC Tianwan 3&4, 2 x 1060 MWe AES-91 $3.8 billion, so $1790/kW
These are for new plants. The bottom of the report shows that when everything is factored in, the cost of electricity from nuclear power is quite competetive with the cost of electricity from gas and coal, and much less expensive than wind.

And note Obama is talking about $15 billion to develop the technology forwind, solar, and biofuel, not $15 billion to actually build or plant anything. He's talking about R&D. If you think otherwise, try to find a statement anywhere of how many additional KwHs will be generated from this $15 billion "investment." When a normal person tells you that you should "invest" in something, you want an idea of what return you can expect. But, of course, politicians are not normal people. So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"

Anyone? Bueller?

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 07:04 AM

Has anyone ever uttered the words, "This has to be done right, so I'm putting Joe Biden in charge," before?

Upchurch

25th February 2009, 08:09 AM

I'm with Beeps on this one. It is flippin' moronic that we aren't taking advantage of modern nuclear power technology and still burning coal, of all things.

I'd also like to hear more about wind power, but only because I have a property that is being considered for up to three turbines.

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 08:14 AM

Here's a flat-out lie:
For that same reason, we must also address the crushing cost of health care.
This is a cost that now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds.
There were about one million bankruptcies in America last year.

That works out to about one bankruptcy every 30 seconds.

And they were all caused by "the crushing cost of health care"?

I bet they weren't. How about things like people owning houses they couldn't afford, people losing jobs...?

There are good reasons to rework our health care system. But claiming it's causing all our bankruptcies is not one of them.

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 08:16 AM

I'm with Beeps on this one. In related news, Hell freezes over.

Cleon

25th February 2009, 08:21 AM

This (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html) suggests you're being overcharged.

Actually, no. If you look carefully, only three of those plants are in the US--and the prices for those are comparable to Georgia's. The Levy plant, for example, is estimated to cost a total of $14 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_County_Nuclear_Power_Plant). FPL is estimating that the cost of their project will be between $12 and $25 billion (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Florida_approves_FPL_plan_for_two_more_reactors_19 0308.html). The Texas project, which is listed at $8 billion, is for the expansion of an existing plant, not for a new one.

The prices of plant construction outside the United States has little bearing on the situation, unless you want Obama to fund nuclear expansion in Asia. (I find that unlikely.)

The fact is, that if that $15 billion was thrown at nuclear energy expansion, it might create one new plant. Might.

These are for new plants. The bottom of the report shows that when everything is factored in, the cost of electricity from nuclear power is quite competetive with the cost of electricity from gas and coal, and much less expensive than wind.
Nuclear plants last for decades, so over time, yeah, the cost per Watt is going to be at least competitive with other sources.

But the startup costs are prohibitively expensive, and that's the part you're glossing over. That $15 billion simply would not do much of anything in terms of expanding nuclear power in the United States.

And note Obama is talking about $15 billion to develop wind, solar, and biofuel technology, not $15 billion to actually build or plant anything. He's talking about R&D.Yup. And instead of R&D, you want to throw it at nuclear power expansion. Don't think I don't understand what you're saying.

$15 billion in R&D accomplishes a lot of R&D. $15 billion thrown at nuclear energy expansion amounts to doodly squat.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for expanding nuclear power. But throwing $15 billion at nuclear energy expansion now would be a massive waste of money, as reactor construction is so ungodly expensive.

It's putting the cart before the horse, basically. Before investing that kind of cash we need to look into ways to reduce the exorbitant cost of plant construction, and streamline the application/approval process (while still making safety the top priority).

Once that's done, then maybe that $15 billion would actually mean something. Until then, it's an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

If you think otherwise, try to find a statement anywhere of how many additional KwHs will be generated from this $15 billion "investment." When a normal person tells you that you should "invest" in something, you want an idea of what return you can expect. But, of course, politicians are not normal people. So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"

Anyone? Bueller?You're arguing against a statement nobody has made.

Cleon

25th February 2009, 08:25 AM

I'm with Beeps on this one. It is flippin' moronic that we aren't taking advantage of modern nuclear power technology and still burning coal, of all things.

Oh, I don't disagree at all.

But that $15 billion wouldn't accomplish much of anything. Nuclear plants are just too damned expensive, and take too long to get approval through various bureaucracies (both government and private). Until that is addressed, that $15 billion would just be wasted money.

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 08:57 AM

$15 billion in R&D accomplishes a lot of R&D. Are the lights in your house powered by electricity or by R&D?

$15 billion thrown at nuclear energy expansion amounts to doodly squat.Fifteen billion would buy a lot more nuclear power were it not for regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html).

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for expanding nuclear power. But throwing $15 billion at nuclear energy expansion now would be a massive waste of money, as reactor construction is so ungodly expensive.

It's putting the cart before the horse, basically. Before investing that kind of cash we need to look into ways to reduce the exorbitant cost of plant construction, and streamline the application/approval process (while still making safety the top priority).See regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence above.

We can also stop reinventing the wheel every time we build a plant (http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower).

Non-uniform designs. The US Nuclear Power Industry never achieved economies of volume because every reactor design was different. Each developer put in their own tweaks and much of the equipment was custom built for each plant. This compounded the difficulties of obtaining NRC licensing approval since the NRC had to evaluate each individual design.

In contrast the French Nuclear Power program settled on a standard design which satisfied the French Regulatory Commission. Industry was able to achieve economies of volume in the production of plants and to complete construction on time. You know you're in deep :talk034: when you have to take engineering instruction from the French...

So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"
You're arguing against a statement nobody has made.
And to support that innovation, we will invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power...So you agree with me that no one has told us how much power we can expect to get back from our "investment"?

Cleon

25th February 2009, 09:15 AM

Are the lights in your house powered by electricity or by R&D?

...I'm not sure how your rhetorical question applies to anything I said.

Fifteen billion would buy a lot more nuclear power were it not for regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/%7Eblc/book/chapter9.html).

See regulatory ratcheting and regulatory turbulence above.

We can also stop reinventing the wheel every time we build a plant (http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower).

Really? Weird. You'd almost think I would've said something like this:

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for expanding nuclear power. But throwing $15 billion at nuclear energy expansion now would be a massive waste of money, as reactor construction is so ungodly expensive.

It's putting the cart before the horse, basically. Before investing that kind of cash we need to look into ways to reduce the exorbitant cost of plant construction, and streamline the application/approval process (while still making safety the top priority).

Once that's done, then maybe that $15 billion would actually mean something. Until then, it's an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

Oh, right, I did. D'oh.

So you agree with me that no one has told us how much power we can expect to get back from our "investment"?

Investment in R&D is investment in R&D. You seem to think someone is pretending it's something else. I'm not. Obama isn't. So who is? :confused:

I'm honestly not sure what your point is, here. Do you think we shouldn't be investing in research and development of new technologies?

Spending that $15 billion on nuclear development would be an extremely bad investment. It simply wouldn't do anything to substantially expand our use of nuclear power.

A real, substantial government investment in nuclear power is something I would support. But first, it needs to involve legislation to streamline the regulatory process, making the construction of new nuclear facilities to be quicker and cheaper (again, while still making safety a top priority). Then we can talk financial investment.

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 09:29 AM

A real, substantial government investment in nuclear power is something I would support. But first, it needs to involve legislation to streamline the regulatory process, making the construction of new nuclear facilities to be quicker and cheaper (again, while still making safety a top priority).Well, how long should that take? After all, Congress managed to write a law that runs to something like 800 pages, that allocates about a billion dollars a page in spending, got it through a careful vetting and debate, ironed out the differences between the Senate and House versions, sent it to the President, and he signed it, all in a matter of a few weeks. Re-writing nuclear plant construction and licensing regulations should be child's play by comparison.

Then we can talk financial investment.
Stop using the word "investment" when talking about government spending. It's like talking about kosher shellfish - nobody knows what it means.

MattusMaximus

25th February 2009, 09:38 AM

Oh, I don't disagree at all.

But that $15 billion wouldn't accomplish much of anything. Nuclear plants are just too damned expensive, and take too long to get approval through various bureaucracies (both government and private). Until that is addressed, that $15 billion would just be wasted money.

We should take a page from the French on this one. Say what you will about them, the French did nuclear power right from the beginning, and now they're reaping the benefits while we limp along.

Cleon

25th February 2009, 09:44 AM

Well, how long should that take? After all, Congress managed to write a law that runs to something like 800 pages, that allocates about a billion dollars a page in spending, got it through a careful vetting and debate, ironed out the differences between the Senate and House versions, sent it to the President, and he signed it, all in a matter of a few weeks. Re-writing nuclear plant construction and licensing regulations should be child's play by comparison.

Nuclear power expansion is obviously no more a priority for the Obama administration than it was for Bush or Clinton.

Stop using the word "investment" when talking about government spending. It's like talking about kosher shellfish - nobody knows what it means.

Here you go (http://www.aviglatt.com/Product_387.html).

Cleon

25th February 2009, 09:48 AM

We should take a page from the French on this one. Say what you will about them, the French did nuclear power right from the beginning, and now they're reaping the benefits while we limp along.

Yep.

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 09:54 AM

Nuclear power expansion is obviously no more a priority for the Obama administration than it was for Bush or Clinton.Obviously, though it certainly should be, considering how much graver the situation is than it was 20 years ago.
Here you go (http://www.aviglatt.com/Product_387.html).Click on the photo of the product and you'll see it's "Imitation Crabmeat Stick."

Pretty much what politicians are talking about when they use the word "invest" - an imitation of the real thing.

Cleon

25th February 2009, 10:00 AM

Obviously, though it certainly should be, considering how much graver the situation is than it was 20 years ago.

The energy situation has become increasingly serious over the decades. It didn't just "switch on" when Obama entered the White House.

But yes, it should be. Ideally, it should've been a priority back during the 90s, before the **** hit the fan.

Click on the photo of the product and you'll see it's "Imitation Crabmeat Stick."

Er, yes, I'm well aware of what goes into "Kosher crab." It was a bit of a joke.

Pretty much what politicians are talking about when they use the word "invest" - an imitation of the real thing.

No, this is completely incorrect. An investment is an investment, whether it's made by an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit, or a government.

BPSCG

25th February 2009, 10:19 AM

No, this is completely incorrect. An investment is an investment, whether it's made by an individual, a corporation, a nonprofit, or a government.An investment is typically made with the expectation of getting something of greater value in return. That greater value can typically be measured as a rate of return on investment, which your business finance 101 class abbreviated as ROI.

When politicians talk about investment, at best they talk the way Obama did last night, saying what the cost of something will be, but not even attempting to say what the return will be, in any measurable terms.

At the worst, they talk in woolly-brained, feel-good platitudes, like "We have to invest in our children's futures..." When a politician speaks of "investing," you should take it as a warning to hold on to your wallet until the politician can answer the question, "What's the ROI?" with a number followed by either a unit of currency or a percent sign.

Obama used the word "invest" or some variation of if thirteen times last night. He did not use the term "return on investment" even once.

Hold on to your wallet.

portlandatheist

25th February 2009, 10:37 AM

A real, substantial government investment in nuclear power is something I would support. But first, it needs to involve legislation to streamline the regulatory process, making the construction of new nuclear facilities to be quicker and cheaper (again, while still making safety a top priority). Then we can talk financial investment.

If nuclear was a priority, Obama could do the things you mention like streamlining the regulatory process. In fact, he seems to understand that bureaucratic processes in place in the health care system are a major factor making it more expensive than it should be, seems like the same logic and conclusions could be made about nuclear energy. He also mentioned solar energy and the fact that although we were early leaders in R and D, Germany outstrips us with production and implementation but what Germany has done with solar power is a total waste and very expensive to the end consumer. There is nothing to envy there.

toddjh

25th February 2009, 10:48 AM

An investment is typically made with the expectation of getting something of greater value in return.

An investment is made with the hope of getting something of greater value in return. Or, more specifically, the hope of getting something of sufficient value to offset the risk.

Your definition of "investment" seems to assume that it's possible to guarantee a specific return. Those types of investments do, of course, exist, but you're not going to like the rates you get most of the time.

You expect Obama to quantify the expected return in terms of dollars or percentages. Ignoring the fact that monetary return is not the only way an investment could pay off, do you demand the same thing when you play the market? Or do you take past performance as an imperfect indicator of potential future results? Past performance of R&D has been pretty good.

Cleon

25th February 2009, 10:51 AM

An investment is typically made with the expectation of getting something of greater value in return. That greater value can typically be measured as a rate of return on investment, which your business finance 101 class abbreviated as ROI.

Right. And one thing you learn quickly when working in the private sector is that ROI can also be frequently abbreviated as WAG.

When politicians talk about investment, at best they talk the way Obama did last night, saying what the cost of something will be, but not even attempting to say what the return will be, in any measurable terms.

At the worst, they talk in woolly-brained, feel-good platitudes, like "We have to invest in our children's futures..."And when you listen to a CEO give a conference call about their quarterly results, you won't hear much different. "This will help us provide world-class service to our clients," or "this investment will take us to new markets" is usually about the level of discourse.

When a politician speaks of "investing," you should take it as a warning to hold on to your wallet until the politician can answer the question, "What's the ROI?" with a number followed by either a unit of currency or a percent sign.R&D doesn't work that way, though. Organizations that invest heavily in R&D don't do so with an expected ROI--if they could predict that, it wouldn't be R&D. It would just be D.

If you go to Apple, or Google, and ask them what the expected ROI is on their R&D budget (investment), they won't be able to give you a firm number. But if you tell them that their R&D investment is therefore not a real investment, they will laugh a deep, loud, belly laugh.

Ohnoes

25th February 2009, 11:31 AM

Obama's speech was good as usual, but Jindal's response was what really interested me. From his "Hi, I'm Troy McClure!" introduction to his Kenneth-from-30-Rock delivery, it was fascinating to watch even apart from the content (which, to be fair, was nearly as sucky). People like him and Palin are supposed to be the future of the GOP? :confused:

LOL I didn't even think of Troy McClure...I felt like he was going to try and sell me some SHAM-WOWS.

I do agree that the future of the GOP is kinda questionable as it seems they are parading different characters up on stage to see which one sticks.

fuelair

25th February 2009, 11:35 AM

The applause was very annoying. I avoided looking at Pelosi by simply listening to it from another room (where I was involved with the more important job of squashing opposition to the JREF moderation team. :D)
Just ban the buggers, everyone!!:D:D

gdnp

25th February 2009, 12:37 PM

Actually, no. If you look carefully, only three of those plants are in the US--and the prices for those are comparable to Georgia's. The Levy plant, for example, is estimated to cost a total of $14 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levy_County_Nuclear_Power_Plant). FPL is estimating that the cost of their project will be between $12 and $25 billion (http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Florida_approves_FPL_plan_for_two_more_reactors_19 0308.html). The Texas project, which is listed at $8 billion, is for the expansion of an existing plant, not for a new one.

I recall hearing long ago that this was in part secondary to how regulators set US electricity rates. At least before deregulation, in many states the utility got to charge based on their costs. The were allowed, say, a 5% return, so if they build a billion dollar plant, they got $50 million a year, if they built a $5 billion plant, they got $250 million a year. They thus had a disincentive to control capital costs. The more they spent, the more they made.

This may have changed as production was split from delivery, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar incentives were still in place.

KoihimeNakamura

25th February 2009, 03:26 PM

That's because warming up the atmosphere causes.. shock.. horror.. climate change

Dr Adequate

25th February 2009, 05:39 PM

Here's a flat-out lie:

There were about one million bankruptcies in America last year.

That works out to about one bankruptcy every 30 seconds.

And they were all caused by "the crushing cost of health care"?

I bet they weren't. How about things like people owning houses they couldn't afford, people losing jobs...?

There are good reasons to rework our health care system. But claiming it's causing all our bankruptcies is not one of them. It's the leading cause of bankruptcy; and it is quite possible that the current rate of bankruptcy is higher than last year's average.

Hindmost

25th February 2009, 05:50 PM

This (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html) suggests you're being overcharged.
These are for new plants. The bottom of the report shows that when everything is factored in, the cost of electricity from nuclear power is quite competetive with the cost of electricity from gas and coal, and much less expensive than wind.

And note Obama is talking about $15 billion to develop the technology forwind, solar, and biofuel, not $15 billion to actually build or plant anything. He's talking about R&D. If you think otherwise, try to find a statement anywhere of how many additional KwHs will be generated from this $15 billion "investment." When a normal person tells you that you should "invest" in something, you want an idea of what return you can expect. But, of course, politicians are not normal people. So how many more kilowatt-hours of electricity are we going to get for our $15 billion "investment?"

Anyone? Bueller?

I guess I will play Bueller today. (remember, he out witted everyone--especially Ben Stein...although that might be easier than I previously expected.)

Obama voted for the 2005 energy bill which subsidizes nuclear power a bit. He has stated that nuclear power does have a place in the mix.

Nuclear power isn't going to solve any energy issues in the this country or around the world. There isn't enough industrial capacity to get the job done. The projections world wide are for nuclear to remain flat...there are about 450 plants and many are getting very old and will be shut down--even with life extension. To replace those and grow the industry is going to be difficult.

There are only two places on the planet that can make forgings needed for the reactor vessels and they don't plan on gearing up to add capacity with the uncertainty in the industry. Same issue exists for electronics and valves and pumps etc. Plus, we don't have enough engineers and crafts due to poor energy policies over the last 30 years.

Now, the French plan. Although good in many ways, France has "socialized" engineering when it comes to their plants. They were able to standardize, but the one stop shopping made their plants expensive. That is why they haven't won competitive bids for plants in the world. Just ask the Finns how well things are going.

In the US, utilities picked reactor vendors, A/Es and turbine vendors as part of normal competitive bidding. This made plants somewhat different. It was not expected for the costs to escalate by a factor of 10 or 20. The vendors have formed consortiums now to standardize plants and offer a full nuclear plant. However, we haven't built one yet.

The current plan is to sych up the first plant in the US around 2016--if everything goes perfect. A few more over the decade past that, but certainly not enough to provide all the energy needs.

The overnight costs for nuclear are just guesstimates right now for the US. We really don't have the experience in building a plant from the ground up since we haven't done it for too long. And of course, the Gen III design isn't finished yet. Korea has the best experience and are doing a good job, but the cost of the plants are still in the billions.

The facts are that we need a diverse energy plan and the ethanol plan from all the midwest lobbyists was just garbage. However, cellulose ethanol does have potential and investment should be made now.

glenn

PS: I never listen to any presidential address.

casebro

25th February 2009, 06:43 PM

My interpretation for BO even giving a speech:

"Oh NOes! My first month i office,and all I've done is sign a very questionable pork bill, flip-flop on Guantanamo, and re-iterate some of Bush's policies. Plus have problems with finding honest nominees for high level posts. This Leader crap isn't turning out like I thought. I better get in some face time and slather on the platitudes for the fools that voted for me... I'll mention health care, energy plans, have a visit from a harmless school marm - "It's for the children" ought to still work..."

Change, my pimply ass. It's Politics as usual.

Hindmost

25th February 2009, 07:52 PM

I recall hearing long ago that this was in part secondary to how regulators set US electricity rates. At least before deregulation, in many states the utility got to charge based on their costs. The were allowed, say, a 5% return, so if they build a billion dollar plant, they got $50 million a year, if they built a $5 billion plant, they got $250 million a year. They thus had a disincentive to control capital costs. The more they spent, the more they made.

This may have changed as production was split from delivery, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar incentives were still in place.

The utilities had to prove costs were necessary to get any type of rate increase. Utilities commissions were not under any obligation to provide what was requested. Increased costs were not always accomodated with a rate increase and the utilities had to cover the difference. This is one of the reasons most utilities cancelled nuclear power plants as it was capital intensive and they weren't getting a return. Plus, demand went down during the 80s and many of the plants weren't needed.

With deregulation, the issues are a bit unknown since we haven't built a plant in the US under these conditions.

glenn

Dr Adequate

25th February 2009, 08:00 PM

Poll results:

According to a poll from CBS News, 63 percent of Americans approved of Obama’s handling of the economic crisis before the speech and 80 percent approved of it after the speech. Similarly, 36 percent thought his economic plan would help them personally before the speech, and 51 percent after. A full 74 percent now think President Obama’s plan will improve the economy, while only 26 percent think it will make no difference or make it worse.

Incidentally, this would seem to mean that at least six percent of people approve of Obama's handling of the crisis while also thinking that he's spending $700000000000 on something that won't actually help.

Prometheus

25th February 2009, 08:43 PM

BPSCG

26th February 2009, 10:38 AM

I'm proud that we passed the recovery plan free of earmarks, and I want to pass a budget next year that ensures that each dollar we spend reflects only our most important national priorities.Next year's budget.

Notice how he slips by this year's?
WASHINGTON - Congress went on a pork-a-palooza yesterday, approving a massive spending bill with big bucks for Hawaiian canoe trips, research into pig smells, and tattoo removal - all while the nation faces an economic crisis.

Among the recipients of federal largesse is the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Honolulu, which got a $238,000 "earmark" in the bill.

The group organizes sea voyages in ancient-style sailing canoes like the ones that first brought settlers to Hawaii.

The sailing club has a powerful wind at its back in the person of Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The bill also has a whopping 8 percent increase over last year for the numerous federal agencies it funds.

New York got its share of earmarks, among them $475,000 to "improve and expand" the Italian American Museum in Little Italy.

The project was pushed by New York Reps. Gary Ackerman and Jerrold Nadler (http://www.nypost.com/topics/topic.php?t=Jerrold+Nadler). The latter touted it, among other earmarks, on his Web site.

Nadler also announced $4.5 million for new park development in Manhattan.

Uncle Sam's generosity extends upstate, where there's $950,000 to convert a railroad bridge over the Hudson River into a walkway in Poughkeepsie.

Earmarks totaled at least $3.8 billion - a figure used by the House Appropriations Committee.

But the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense calculates that there are an astonishing 8,570 earmarks at a cost of $7.7 billion.

The bill, which critics slammed as larded with pork, has big bucks to combat putrid stenches in the heartland, with $1.7 million for "Swine Odor and Manure Management Research."

That's on top of $1.9 million in each of the last two years, or nearly $6 million over the last three years.

The swine research center, at Iowa State University in Ames, got funds through the Agricultural Research Service, and aims to improve the smell of animals and the lagoons where waste is stored.

There's funding for mosquito trapping in Gainesville, Fla. - requested by Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. The research deals with the West Nile virus, and was funded at $1.2 million in each of the last two years.

The House packaged the bill from several spending measures held over from last year. It needs to pass the Senate and be signed into law by President Obama.

Republican Sen. John McCain (http://www.nypost.com/topics/topic.php?t=John+McCain) of Arizona, whom Obama vanquished in November, is calling on the president to veto it.

But Democratic leaders say the spending spree was a bipartisan affair, with up to 40 percent of the earmarks coming from Republicans.

Obama has criticized earmarks and insisted they be kept out of stimulus legislation - a suggestion that drew laughs from Republicans at the president's address to Congress Tuesday night.

Another earmark, by Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) provides $200,000 for a "tattoo-removal violence-outreach program" in Los Angeles.

The funds would buy a tattoo-removal machine to help gang members erase signs of their past.
Link (http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262009/news/politics/congress_porky_pols_pig_out_on_fine_wine_157027.ht m).

Next year, there won't be any earmarks in the budget.

Sure, I believe that.