I'm tired of hearing about him too. Also, somebody at NBC should notice that he isn't really all that eloquent, so Andrea whatshername can stop asking him the same lame questions after every race.

BTW when are idiot reporters going to realize that whenever there is a team event or a relay, the "other" guys are not trying to win because one of the team members is shooting for some special individual glory. They are trying to win because they want to win for themselves. It was a while ago, but in Denver when the Avalanche won the Stanley Cup with Ray Bourque on the team, the first question all of the local sports guys would ask every player they interviewed was "How do is it feel to win the cup for Ray?". They probably couldn't have cared less whether he got a cup or not.

So I guess these "400-500 'breeder' type nuclear reactors" are free?

At a billion dollars each, there is about a half a trillion dollars. Then as you noted since they are in "areas with extremely low population density", you are going to have to build transmission lines to get the power to where the people are. And there just might be some costs associated with waste disposal too.

Sounds like we are getting in the ball park with wind and solar (which actually work, right now, this very second, generating electricty around the world).

I think I'll take my chances with wind and solar. The fuel that is used causes sunburns and messed up hairdos, but you can LIVE with that. A spill of nuclear fuel, not so much.

I'm not interested in 1780 living either, but putting all your eggs in one basket solution is a bad idea. There are too many unknowns in the costs of switching to breeder reactors for the bulk of our electricity, and the resistance of society at large to having them where they are needed is just too strong. Really now... what seems more likely to be economically feasible:

1-transmissions lines from a breeder reactor farm in Alaska to the lower 48 states (nice terrorist target BTW)

2-solar/wind plants scattered across the country, located near existing transmission lines

I personally agree with the idea that we will end up with a variety of sources of energy, not just one magic bullet. Whatever is best suited for a region should be used: solar in the SW, wind wherever the wind blows steady, tidal energy in the places you want to put the breeder farms, gas and coal elsewhere. I also don't really see the immediate need to have massive storage capacity for solar/wind, just go ahead and fire up the coal and gas at night or on calm days - you still cut down your usage of those nonrenewables immensely and stretch out the supplies. The storage technology could actually come later.

BTW how many nuclear plants have opened or are planned for the next 5 years in the US? How many solar and wind plants?

From the August 15 Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_10215313):

Colorado officials announced today a major expansion for Vestas Wind Systems in what will become the state's largest renewable-energy venture.

The Danish firm will build a $290 million wind-turbine complex in Brighton that will employ 1,350 workers.

Vestas also plans to develop a separate, $240 million wind-tower manufacturing plant, probably in Pueblo, although the location was not announced today.

The two new plants, combined with Vestas' existing wind-blade factory in Windsor, will bring its Colorado investment to $680 million and its total employment in the state to 2,450.

I guess they didn't read your post about how they are not in the ballpark economically. Maybe you should call them and tell them about your breeder reactor farms.

Than to see one of the cocky favorites lose the gold to someone who ran his hardest the whole race. For chrissakes, some of these races only last 10 seconds, and your at the Olympics. Easing up is one thing but shutting it down is just asking for trouble. A runner fading and getting caught near the end when the lactic acid kicks in and the legs slow down is one thing, but losing because you underestimate your competition and try to cruise to save a little energy or to play a head game is being pretty arrogant.

I'm in agreement with h0tr0d, the debates should be where the tide turns overwhelmingly against McCain. They get lots of coverage and I fully expect Obama to completely outclass McCain.

I think it really comes down to how good the questions are at the debates. By good I mean do some of the questions actually challenge the candidates to think on their feet just a bit, or do they all just serve as launching pads for talking points. I'm hoping McCain has one of those moments where he gets flustered and just goes blank and can't even spew out a canned answer to some simple question. That might show voters that this guy is not someone you want as president, even though you might still respect him.

I think the assignment of blame in the mortgage mess is a classic example of people not acknowledging that 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Borrowers made many bad choices with loans and houses.

Lenders made many bad choices with who they made loans to.

Some of the borrowers didn't do their homework, got greedy, or were just not all that smart. The difference in the case of the lenders is that it was a systemic thing, repeated over and over. They are in the business and should have known better. The fact this did happen and that it now hurts everyone (hopefully you're not needing to sell your house right now), shows that strong regulation is needed. Even if you don't think the borrowers deserve any protection from unscrupulous lenders, it is clearly in your and my best interests to prevent something like this from happening again.