The universe where McCain got elected.

[SpaceGuy50]

What do you think that universe is like (if it exists)?

 

[Demystifier]

Is it physics, politics, or fun?

 

[waht]

it collapsed on itself

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My honest opinion: McCain wouldn't have the intellectual horsepower to deal with the problems we face. It would have been a disaster, which is precisely what I predicted about Bush II in 2000. I don't see McCain as the Forrest Gump of politics like I do Bush, but he would still be out of his league.

He would probably adhere to the failed Republican ideology and do nothing; leading to a sustained recession that may become a full-blown depression. At best, we would follow in the footsteps of Japan and find ourselves still in a highly depressed economy when McCain left office.

God help us if anything ever happened to McCain and Palin took over. I swear, at that point I would be anti-American. Lipstick doesn't make a Forrest Gump-Darth Vader hybrid look any better.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Perhaps some producer will come out with a Republican pacifier that will help, as "West Wing" did for Democrats.

 

[humanino]

The rest of the world would also definitely have lost hope in the US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The rest of the world would also definitely have lost hope in the US.

You may have found Tsu and I on your doorstep asking for refugee status.

 

[rootX]

What do you think that universe is like (if it exists)?

Universal elections

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that in one trip, Obama has done more to restore American crediblity and favorability than anything since 911 [or before for that matter!], yet the Republicans are criticizing him - go figure. I bet Limbaugh is turning blue in the face with all of the gushing comments coming from world leaders.

 

[OAQfirst]

Early on in his administration, he'd already be fumbling over his energy policy once he discovers that 45 nuke plants are out of the question.

 

[Focus]

Note that in one trip, Obama has done more to restore American crediblity and favorability than anything since 911...

I agree with you, I am in the UK and I confirm that we are all in favour of Obama. USA has a bad reputation around here because the leader of the country says a lot about it, and when American voted Bush in second time round, we thought all hope was lost.

Besides it is clear that Obama is far more intelligent than McCain. I was very impressed with him watching the election debates, he completely defeated McCain. He has a lot to do, the Bush administration left him a whole pile of turd and many people will start blaming Obama for it. Republicans seem to think that not intefering with the economy is going to make it all go away, which is what landed the US in Black Sunday not so long ago.

 

[signerror]

Early on in his administration, he'd already be fumbling over his energy policy once he discovers that 45 nuke plants are out of the question.

What, how so?

 

[OAQfirst]

What, how so?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/a-siegel/mccains-utter-disdain-for_b_135457.html

Yes, according to their work, 20 years from now, John McCain's 45 nuclear power plants would provide just over two percent of business-as-usual electricity generation.

 

[signerror]

Yes, according to their work, 20 years from now, John McCain's 45 nuclear power plants would provide just over two percent of business-as-usual electricity generation.

Obviously flawed. Current demand is 3.8 PWh/year. A modern EPR yields 1.65 GWe. 45 of these is 17% of electric demand.

Nuclear power is very quickly scalable. Look at the example of France: their entire nuclear fleet - equal to some 90% of their electricity demand - was built in one 20-year period:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4333/frelec.jpg

The McCain plan is simply not ambitious enough.

 

[signerror]

I've descended in the cesspool of Huffington, and immediately spotted the glaring errors.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/8515/uselectricityconsumptio.jpg

They confuse thermal and electric energy - actually, twice! Their final figure is off by a factor of roughly 1/x^2, where x is the Carnot loss of a power plant steam turbine (maybe 33%, so a factor of 9x - consistent with the scale of the discrepancy between our numbers, 17%/2%).

The first time, they divide an amount of electric energy (1 QBtu) by an amount of thermal energy (33 + 15 QBtu). One factor of x.

The second time is less obvious: it is in the reduction 3 QBtu -> 1 QBtu. What are the sources of "production and transmission losses"? Well, about 70% is Carnot losses, and an additional 7% is transmission losses. (wikipedia). Carnot losses dominate - they are larger by a factor of 10x.

...but what they do, when they say 3 QBtu of electricity PRODUCED becomes 1 QBtu of electricity delivered - they count the entire 2/3 losses, Carnot + transmission! They double-count Carnot - they take electricity, and apply Carnot losses to it! In reality, the 3 QBtu ELECTRICITY already includes Carnot losses, and is short only the transmission losses - yielding, roughly, 2.8 QBtu delivered.

So from whatever numbers they used, the meaningful ratio is 2.8 QBtu electricity delivered / (15.1 + 2.8) QBtu electricity total - 15.6%.

Unbelievably unprofessional crap.

 

[humanino]

Look at the example of France

Although your graph was not produced by the best software around, you make a good point :!)

 

[signerror]

Here's a table derived from Huffington's numbers, to shine light on this bull:

THERMAL energy
Nuclear: ~9 QBtu (~3x the electric energy)
Total: ~57 QBtu (basically the whole graph)

ELECTRIC energy PRODUCED
Nuclear: ~3 QBtu (their number)
Total: ~18 QBtu (15+3)

ELECTRIC energy DELIVERED
Nuclear: ~2.8 QBtu (they claim 1 QBtu)
Total: ~17 QBtu

 

[rootX]

Here's a table derived from Huffington's numbers, to shine light on this bull

But, is Huffington a reliable source?


@OP:
While, I agree that Obama has greater potential than McCain, and McCain made lots of mistakes during the elections. I also prefer Obama because he is more liberal. But, I would wait for few more years before judging which one is better.

 

[OAQfirst]

Eh, I was influenced; the Guardian ranked the Huffington Post as the "most powerful blog."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/09/blogs

 

[signerror]

Eh, I was influenced; the Guardian ranked the Huffington Post as the "most powerful blog."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/09/blogs

'Reliable', not 'powerful'. They are not synonyms.

 

[rootX]

Eh, I was influenced; the Guardian ranked the Huffington Post as the "most powerful blog."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/mar/09/blogs

oo, I missed your one (and bunch of other posts) :shy:

I remember from the Politics forum that Huffington is not allowed here.

 

[Evo]

oo, I missed your one (and bunch of other posts) :shy:

I remember from the Politics forum that Huffington is not allowed here.

You just won a GOOBF card (Get Out Of Banning Free). Yes, unfortunately Huffington Post, although they have some good articles, is a biased blog, they do not present both sides of an issue.

 

[OmCheeto]

What do you think that universe is like (if it exists)?

My alternate moved to Canada and renounced his US citizenship.

(We invented an inter-universal communication device last summer and have been comparing notes.)

Blagojevich is still governor over there, with no Obama seat to sell off.

And of course, with Sarah Palin as VP, Comedy Central had way too much competition and went out of business. Colbert was picked up as a sidekick by Limbaugh, and Stuart is now mopping lavatories in some porn parlor in Queens.

 

[Count Iblis]

Is it physics, politics, or fun?

It is 1/sqrt(3) [|physics> - i |politics> + |fun>]

 

[superwolf]

What do you think that universe is like (if it exists)?

There are lots of those universes.