Obama's advocacy group lining up behind clean energy

Jul 4, 2013 Full story: The Daily Tribune 31

WASHINGTON a?? As President Obama pushes an aggressive national climate-change plan, his administration's nonprofit advocacy arm is becoming active in clean-energy drives across the country.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Your Ex

United States

#1 Jul 4, 2013
Don't worry, it's not really a used oil pond.
It's a reflecting pool, just like that fancy one in DC!
radiofreeamerica

Tarpon Springs, FL

#2 Jul 4, 2013
The only "climate change" obama will have is going from Africa back to D.C.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#3 Jul 4, 2013
During difficult economic times, the best progressive thing to do is increase the cost of electricity by 30-60%

Since: Dec 07

Palestine, TX

#4 Jul 4, 2013
Funny how the leaders of nobama's non profits make six figures and their fearless leader al gore is worth 200 million!! LMAO

They're for the people, y'now.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#5 Jul 4, 2013
I doubt that any of them are truly lining up behind "clean" energy, just unreliable energy, which has a higher carbon footprint than the true clean energy, nuclear.

Since: May 13

Miami, FL

#6 Jul 4, 2013
thethirdrail
subject more grrreeeen energy boondagols.
How much more money will be poured into
things like those solar energy companies that
went belly up After After After giving
How much to Democrats????????
Obama Did Did Did Did say he wants to put
the coal companies out of business!!!!!!!!!
He is now trying to do to to to Climate Change
Policies what he has done to our Health Care
System duhhhhhhh
Bluntforce

Ashburn, VA

#7 Jul 5, 2013
Anything the closet queen communist promotes is 180° away from what is good for America.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#8 Jul 5, 2013
thethirdrail wrote:
Obama Did [] say he wants to put
the coal companies out of business!!!!!!!!!
Well, so do I, but I want them to go out of business because we found a source of energy that is even cheaper than coal, not to satisfy some political agenda.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers; energy cheaper than coal.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#9 Jul 5, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
They're for the people, y'now.
Yup, for the people who can give them big bucks! ;)
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#10 Jul 5, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
I doubt that any of them are truly lining up behind "clean" energy, just unreliable energy, which has a higher carbon footprint than the true clean energy, nuclear.
<LOL> 'true clean energy, nuclear'

?????

Did you forget about the spent nuclear fuel rods that will remain LETHAL for at least 250,000 years???

<duh>

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#11 Jul 5, 2013
clean energy is fine. just down throw an already weak economy down the toilet (which is what o's proposal will undoubtedly do). does he think he can divorce himself from basic economics???

"To think we will get these countries to cooperate is sheer fantasy. We’ve been negotiating climate treaties for 20 years and gotten exactly nowhere. China, India, and the other rising and modernizing countries point out that the West had a 150-year industrial head start that made it rich. They are still poor. And now, just as they are beginning to get rich, we’re telling them to stop dead in their tracks?

Fat chance. Obama imagines he’s going to cajole China into a greenhouse-gas-emissions reduction that will slow its economy, increase energy costs, derail industrialization, and risk enormous social unrest. This from a president who couldn’t even get China to turn over one Edward Snowden to U.S. custody."

Charles Krauthammer

Since: May 13

Miami, FL

#12 Jul 6, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Well, so do I, but I want them to go out of business because we found a source of energy that is even cheaper than coal, not to satisfy some political agenda.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers; energy cheaper than coal.
thethirdrail
subject liquid saaaaaaay whaaat never heard of it.
a cheaper never ending source of energy is to bottle all
that stuff(what's it called????)that liberals exhale!!!!
This is just one more way that a communist is trying to
control everything we do. Which of Obama's communists czars
will have full charge of this boondagal????

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#15 Jul 7, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
<LOL> 'true clean energy, nuclear'
?????
Did you forget about the spent nuclear fuel rods that will remain LETHAL for at least 250,000 years???
<duh>
Only if you do something STUPID with them, duh!!!!!

Extract the dangerous parts of the spent nuclear fuel and BURN them up in a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler, duh!

The rest are safe after 300 years. Duh!

You really should learn something about the technology before just parroting anti-nuke slogans. <duh>

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#16 Jul 7, 2013
thethirdrail wrote:
<quoted text>
thethirdrail
subject liquid saaaaaaay whaaat never heard of it.
Then I'll say it again. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler which is a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor that uses recycled spent nuclear fuel as the initial fissile load and uses recycled radioactive wind-mill waste as the fertile fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR

Glad I could help clear up your confusion.

Since: May 13

Miami, FL

#17 Jul 7, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Then I'll say it again. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler which is a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor that uses recycled spent nuclear fuel as the initial fissile load and uses recycled radioactive wind-mill waste as the fertile fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR
Glad I could help clear up your confusion.
thethirdrail

what happened with Japan's nuclear plant???????
Your Ex

United States

#18 Jul 7, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Then I'll say it again. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recycler which is a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor that uses recycled spent nuclear fuel as the initial fissile load and uses recycled radioactive wind-mill waste as the fertile fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR
Glad I could help clear up your confusion.
Much safer than convention nuclear power generation, but the same long term waste storage problems.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#21 Jul 7, 2013
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
Much safer than convention nuclear power generation, but the same long term waste storage problems.
Nope. Conventional reactors produce spent nuclear fuel that contains substantial amounts of transuranic (TRU) elements that have long half lives and stay dangerous for ~300,000 years. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors don't produce those long lived TRUs so their output is only dangerous for about 300 years. 300 years is easy to store fission products for.

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#22 Jul 7, 2013
tazman wrote:
<quoted text>Say it as many times as you wish.No one is listening.
Not true. Everyone that reads this thread will see it and some will not be as close-minded as you appear to be. So the truth is that YOU are not listening, but you are not everyone. Sorry to burst your ego-bubble there! ;)

Since: Mar 13

Alexandria, VA

#23 Jul 7, 2013
thethirdrail wrote:
<quoted text>
what happened with Japan's nuclear plant???????
After and incredibly large earthquake and a massive tsunami, several plants that did not have the safety upgrades that all US plants have and that were strongly recommended by the plant design/manufacturer suffered a large enough accident to, as the fellow says, get fubar. Only the terroristic rhetoric of the anti-nukes is preventing an appropriate clean-up and repatriation. If the clean-up effort had been appropriately targeted, the red zone would be minute and almost everyone would be home by now.
Your Ex

United States

#24 Jul 8, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. Conventional reactors produce spent nuclear fuel that contains substantial amounts of transuranic (TRU) elements that have long half lives and stay dangerous for ~300,000 years. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors don't produce those long lived TRUs so their output is only dangerous for about 300 years. 300 years is easy to store fission products for.
I done used the Internets, and hey, you're right!
The only reason we used the current method was to obtain the weapons grade by-products.
Brilliant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's have a balanced plan for producing the el... 5 hr Solarman 78
September 2014: The Month SolarCity Residential... Tue Gerald Vonberger 1
Blythe City Manager Says Solar Power Brings Ben... Mon Solarman 1
APS will move ahead with free solar Dec 20 Solarman 1
NY's bad move on fracking Dec 20 Solarman 1
National View: Rooftop solar panels facing the ... Dec 18 Solarman 1
PSE, RES Americas to develop battery storage pr... Dec 17 Solarman 1
More from around the web