Organizing for America | RaySquirrel's Blog

Community Blogs

RaySquirrel's Blog

View Full Profile »

About The Author...

RaySquirrel (Lake Ronkonkoma, NY)

« Hide Full Profile

User Profile

User:

Name:

I am a regular contributer to YouTube and Revver. I currently have a blog on myspace. I am an aspiring filmmaker, a hardcore balls-to-the-wall atheist, and my political beliefs are more aligned with the Libertarian party then they are with a Democratic party.

X Prize Foundation

By RaySquirrel - Nov 7th, 2008 at 12:37 am EST

Also listed in: Students for Barack Obama

I find it necessary to mention the X Prize Foundation. For anyone who havent heard of them they are a foundation that offers cash prizes to help spur innovations that would benefit humanity in profound ways. Some of you might have heard of SpaceShipOne. It is the first space craft designed for commercial use, and was the winner of the Ansari X Prize.

The foundation is now working on new prizes to spur innovation in space exploration, genomics, transportation, and healthcare. They just completed the first round of the Google Lunar X Prize, for private individuals to build a new lunar explorer. The Progressive Automotive X Prize was established to spur the invention of cars that get 100 MPG (I have a feeling that's where McCain got the idea for his campaign). There are already several cars ready for release in 2009, including one two seater vehicle that gets 300 MPG.

The foundation is now working on two prizes that aim to dramatically improve healthcare and healthcare efficiency. The first is the Archon X Prize for Genomics, the prize will be given to the private organization that sequences 100 genomes in a week. This would drastically improve our knowledge of the different traits and possible disease to which a person may be predisposed. I believe, the reason why many Scandinavian countries have such efficient at diagnosing and delivering healthcare is due to the fact that those countries have genealogies that go back centuries. That way it would make sense to have a large social safety net, since there are not a lot of unpredictable costs.

The X Prize foundation has just anounced a new prize in collaboration with Wellspring. The aim of this prize is to help improve the efficiency of healthcare delivery. I do not know what that would entail but I am excited about it. One of the first things Obama should do as president is recognize and help promote this great organization.

I hope I've informed some people and hope to see what others think. I have posted links to their YouTube and Offical Home pages below:

http://www.youtube.com/user/xprize

http://www.xprize.org/

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Nuclear Power

By RaySquirrel - Jul 12th, 2008 at 2:17 am EDT

Nuclear Power | Report to Admin
Reply
By RaySquirrel 0 seconds ago
I'm going to say something that will not be popular but all major scientists agree that no energy policy is complete without a strong emphasis on nuclear energy. Unlike wind and solar it is always on and produces kilotons of electricity. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear produces no CO2 and with new reprocessing techniques the amount of waste that is produced is negligible.

Someone is most likely going to make a reference to Chernobyl. Chernobyl was poorly managed and had no containment vessel. All currently operating nuclear plants are contained by seven feet of steel reinforced concrete and added safety measures that make a meltdown or a terrorist attack.

Someone is most likely going to mention the production cost is not competitive on the market. Nuclear reactors are becoming more efficient and more compact. Developing nations such as Brazil, China and India have new nuclear power plants currently in production.

Someone is most likely going to mention the waste problem. The amount of yearly waste produced per person would fit in a tea cup. That is negligible compared to the 30 tones of waste in CO2 of oil and coal fired power plants, and all the toxic chemicals that are involved in the production and disposal of solar panels. Nuclear waste can be easily managed and stored in impenetrable containers. And with new reprocessing techniques and reactor designs (such as pebble bed reactors) there is almost no waste to speak of.

Obama has been particularly tepid in his approach to nuclear power. His objection to the Yucca mountain repository is particularly ignorant. The Yucca mountain repository is in the middle of a DESERT where nobody could touch it. Neither could waste could not come into contact with any ground soil, because it is a DESERT.

Currently nations such as France, Switzerland, and Japan have built out their nuclear capacity. France receives 80% of all its electricity from nuclear power. On top of that Germany has been downgrading its nuclear capacity and yet buys electricity from France. Switzerland receives 50% of their electricity from nuclear and 50% from hydro and emits the least CO2 of any developed nation. Japan exists on a tectonic fault and yet they receive 30% of their electricity from nuclear. They have never had a dangerous accident related to their nuclear reactors yet.

Christine you are completely wrong on nuclear power! Every single point of your reply is completely wrong! Did you even read my post?

1. No! Nuclear power is not as dangerous as nuclear weapons. You cannot make weapons grade uranium from nuclear fuel. Unprocessed uranium emits less radiation then one pack of cigarettes, one banana or one spoonful of peanut butter. The processing and application of nuclear fission takes place in a containment vessel that is impossible to breach. The waste produce is so minuscule that all the nuclear waste that has ever been produced in the U.S. are currently stored on the sites where they were processed. Best of all, new processing and reprocessing techniques leave little to absolutely no waste.

2. We may not be able to predict natural disasters but we can build suppositories that are strong enough to withstand any type of natural disasters. Japan is no stranger to earthquakes, monsoons and tsunamis and the island nation still receives 30% of all its electricity from nuclear power. One interesting little fact that was covered when Katrina hit New Orleans, there where three nuclear power plants directly in the path of Katrina. Before, during and after Katrina hit the power plants were not damaged, there was no nuclear disaster, and they were still producing electricity.

3. There is little support for wind and solar because as they stand right now they are not cost effective. Right now it is impossible to supply current energy demand with wind and solar. You would need a windfarm larger then the state of Rhode Island to produce the amount of electricity that you would receive from one nuclear power plant. Solar is currently less cost effective then wind, and there are toxic chemicals that are involved in the production and disposal of solar panels. Not to mention the obvious point that wind and solar are intermittent sources of electricity. Wind dose not always blow. Sun dose not always shine. In order to maintain society we need a baseload of electricity that is always on. That is not to say that wind and solar cannot become more cost effective, they are. They just can never be as cost effective as nuclear.

4. No. You don't stop consuming energy just for putting up some solar panels or some wind turbines. Because just as I established wind and solar are intermittent and not cost effective. You need a constant stream of baseload electricity flowing on the power grid. If there where such a miraculous energy producing device you are completely free to spend your own money to install it yourself. There is nobody stopping you from doing it yourself. In fact there are such miraculous energy producing devices, they are called geothermal heat pumps. You can install them in your home for a high up front cost and they pay for themselves with a steady stream of heat and electricity. The problem is that geothermal heat pumps do not have the advertising money that wind and solar do.

I have read your profile information and it is quite apparent that you only embrace environmentalism as a political issue. You use it as a means to associate yourself with something that you think is positive to differentiate yourself from things that you think are negative. You most likely know nothing about environmental science or ecology. I could tell you that most energy and environmental scientists agree that there is no energy policy is complete without a heavy emphasis on nuclear power, you would not believe me because it dose on tow the party line.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.