# Bailing Out the Financial Sector Vs. Building Really Cool Shit **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2008, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653 "2008-09-22T06:47:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2008, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/21 "2008-09-23T15:19:18Z")
Why on Earth is this topic in Great Debates? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/22 "2008-09-25T08:34:46Z")
Fine, you’ve convinced me. I was going to vote for Obama, but I now recognize that he’s just too oldety-old-old. I’m running for President on a sex androids for all platform. Do I need a party name? Evil Overlord Party? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/23 "2008-09-25T08:56:31Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Fine, you’ve convinced me. I was going to vote for Obama, but I now recognize that he’s just too oldety-old-old. I’m running for President on a sex androids for all platform. Do I need a party name? Evil Overlord Party? I’d say it fits in nicely with third plank of [The Scorched Earth Party’s platform:](http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/) > [@](#): > > Here at the Scorched Earth Party, we are dedicated to a few simple principles: > that the concept of “life is sacred” is the best joke we’ve heard this year. > that nothing satisfies like clubbing some moron to death with a lead pipe. > that you can never get laid enough. > that the world will continue to deteriorate until 90% of its population is eliminated. BTW, if you do the math, $700 billion works out to be almost 600 gallons of gas for every man, woman, and child in America at $4/gal. ---
**Author:** ![brewha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@brewha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brewha)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/24 "2008-09-25T12:28:05Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > [I’d also like to mention that if we spent a “mere” $300 billion, we could eliminate our dependance on foreign oil, thus keeping some $200 billion/yr in the US.](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2003/06/01/343389/index.htm) So we spend $300 billion to switch from being dependant on oil to being dependant on natural gas? Hydrogen is just a storage method - the energy is still coming from a fossil fuel. And, as far as cool shit, where is my god damn flying car?!? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/25 "2008-09-25T19:37:37Z")
> [@brewha](#): > > So we spend $300 billion to switch from being dependant on oil to being dependant on natural gas? Hydrogen is just a storage method - the energy is still coming from a fossil fuel. Natural gas burns cleaner than gasoline, and we have more natural gas in the US than we do oil. > [@](#): > > And, as far as cool shit, where is my god damn flying car?!? Well, for $700 billion, you could buy [1.4 million of them.](http://www.moller.com/faq.htm#q11) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2008, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/26 "2008-09-25T21:54:22Z")
> [@brewha](#): > > So we spend $300 billion to switch from being dependant on oil to being dependant on natural gas? Hydrogen is just a storage method - the energy is still coming from a fossil fuel. > > And, as far as cool shit, where is my god damn flying car?!? Any alternative energy scenario that does not include nuclear power generation is not worthy of being taken seriously, because it is being driven by emotion and not reason. That lady’s nat-gas-to-hydrogen plan, the Dem platform, and Gore’s “end foreign oil” thesis, all ignored nuclear. Therefore, they’re hard to take seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/27 "2008-09-26T01:55:12Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Any alternative energy scenario that does not include nuclear power generation is not worthy of being taken seriously, because it is being driven by emotion and not reason. That lady’s nat-gas-to-hydrogen plan, the Dem platform, and Gore’s “end foreign oil” thesis, all ignored nuclear. Therefore, they’re hard to take seriously. Any statement on an empirical matter that is offered without substantiation is not worthy of being taken seriously, because it is being driven by emotion and not reason. More generally, nuclear power is a rather expensive way of producing electricity, both before and after waste disposal costs and governmental subsidies are factored in. [Cite](http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/). That’s not to say that is should be dismissed, but rather it should be subject to the same cost/benefit evaluation as any other source. Gore’s position is, “We have a lot of nuclear plants in the U.S., and … I’m not anti-nuclear. I’m a little skeptical that’s it’s gonna play a much bigger role than it does now. I think it’ll continue to play a role.” Sorry, but modern conservatives are the Kings of emotions-and-feelings. They make claims about Al Gore after consulting their gut, rather than google. And their flat and uninformed statements regarding nuclear power are just another demonstration of this. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/28 "2008-09-26T09:48:36Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Any alternative energy scenario that does not include nuclear power generation is not worthy of being taken seriously, because it is being driven by emotion and not reason. That lady’s nat-gas-to-hydrogen plan, the Dem platform, and Gore’s “end foreign oil” thesis, all ignored nuclear. Therefore, they’re hard to take seriously. You can consider it all you want, but how many nuke plants do think we can actually build within a decade? **Una** ’s stated in the past that if you waved away all the paperwork headaches, it’d take 70 **years** to replace the coal plants in the US. [Cite.](http://65.69.77.33/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19135) I can’t imagine that adding a significant number of nuke plants (while still keeping the coal burners going) would be any faster or easier. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/29 "2008-09-26T19:30:18Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > I’d say it fits in nicely with third plank of [The Scorched Earth Party’s platform:](http://www.armory.com/~crisper/Scorch/) Man, when I was half the age I am now, I would have joined them. For about a minute. > [@](#): > > BTW, if you do the math, $700 billion works out to be almost 600 gallons of gas for every man, woman, and child in America at $4/gal. Over what period of time? Approaching that level of additional gasoline consumption in under three months would spike the price again, possibly by 75%. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/30 "2008-09-26T19:44:37Z")
Didn’t see it on that list, but what would you say a smallish (50 sq miles?), nuclear-powered, climate-controlled island that could go oh, 20 knots or so, would set me back, **Tuckerfan**? With 30 to 40 members of The Swedish Bikini Team included of course… ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/31 "2008-09-26T19:44:57Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > You can consider it all you want, but how many nuke plants do think we can actually build within a decade? **Una** ’s stated in the past that if you waved away all the paperwork headaches, it’d take 70 **years** to replace the coal plants in the US. [Cite.](http://65.69.77.33/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19135) I can’t imagine that adding a significant number of nuke plants (while still keeping the coal burners going) would be any faster or easier. As much I love you, Tucker, this makes no sense. I’m not particularly in favor of the crash-build scenario, but we could easily put 10-20 nuke plants up within a decade, which would be a substantial portion of our power, and noticably cut emissions from coal plants since we won’t need as many. EDIT: IIRC we have 102 now, which supply 20% of American power. 10-20 new ones would be, more than that proportionately, because they could be bigger and better than the tech we had in the 1960’s and 70’s. 10 new plants would be about a 2% increase in percent power generation\*. That may not sound like much, but it will seriously helped air quality if you cluster them in the right regions. 20 new plants would be about 3-5% in percent power generation\*. \*After the increase in demand overall. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/32 "2008-09-26T19:57:06Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > As much I love you, Tucker, this makes no sense. I’m not particularly in favor of the crash-build scenario, but we could easily put 10-20 nuke plants up within a decade, which would be a substantial portion of our power, and noticably cut emissions from coal plants since we won’t need as many. > > EDIT: IIRC we have 102 now, which supply 20% of American power. 10-20 new ones would be, more than that proportionately, because they could be bigger and better than the tech we had in the 1960’s and 70’s. 10 new plants would be about a 2% increase in percent power generation\*. That may not sound like much, but it will seriously helped air quality if you cluster them in the right regions. 20 new plants would be about 3-5% in percent power generation\*. > > \*After the increase in demand overall. **Una** ’s _the_ expert on this, you’ll have to ask her if that were possible. Mind you, I’ve talked to people who worked for the NRC and claimed that **ten** years ago, they were _still_ processing the paperwork from the TMI accident, if that’s true, then we’ve got a helluvalot of paperwork to dispose of (several small deciduous forests, it would seem). Also, I seriously doubt that you’d have an _easy_ time getting nuke plants built, because of all the “OMG! We’re gonna die!” halfwits screwing things up with court challenges, etc. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/33 "2008-09-26T20:07:25Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > …With 30 to 40 members of The Swedish Bikini Team included of course… 30 to 40? From what I hear from the girls down at the pool hall, your eyes are bigger than your, ah, _pistolo peligroso_. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2008, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/34 "2008-09-26T22:06:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 30 to 40? From what I hear from the girls down at the pool hall, your eyes are bigger than your, ah, _pistolo peligroso_. Dude, at 52, what do you think my odds are of scoring with a bodalicious twenty-something member of The Swedish Bikini Team? 30 to 1? 40 to 1? There’s your answer…and remember, I’m an optimist. And if you haven’t tried eye-sex yet, don’t knock pudner…'cause you will. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2008, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653/35 "2008-09-27T05:04:59Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > Also, I seriously doubt that you’d have an _easy_ time getting nuke plants built, because of all the “OMG! We’re gonna die!” halfwits screwing things up with court challenges, etc. I was taking the “government stops halfwits from being stupid” assumption. But while the technical challenges are certainly a pain, it’s not fundamentally much different than any other large building structure - even easier than many skyscrapers in technical complexity. You’ve got a huge, thick concrete dome, a reasonably complex system of pipes and safe nuclear storage, and some very complex reactor equipment. It’s a project, definitely, but things of that scale can be done. Even counting planning and design, you’re looking at 3-7 years to ge them built (depending on size and siting). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bailing-out-the-financial-sector-vs-building-really-cool-shit/464653.md?page=1)