Obama's advocacy group lining up behi...

Obama's advocacy group lining up behind clean energy

There are 31 comments on the The Daily Tribune story from Jul 4, 2013, titled Obama's advocacy group lining up behind clean energy. In it, The Daily Tribune reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#25 Jul 8, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> 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>
Spent nuclear fuel is safe AFTER 300 years??

So it is UNSAFE for 300 years!

And they are running out of space to put the stuff. And no place is 100% safe.

And you think that is a good thing?

Ok, let's store it down the street from your home.

Put it in YOUR backyard.

And why not?? They'll be PLENTY of spent fuel to go around thanks to the pro-nuke parrots.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#26 Jul 8, 2013
>> = Eleanor
::= me

>> Spent nuclear fuel is safe AFTER 300 years??
:: Once you take the TRUs out, yes.

>> So it is UNSAFE for 300 years!
:: Yup.

>> And they are running out of space to put the stuff.
:: Once the TRUs and unspent Uranium is pulled out, the remainder is tiny. A 100% nuclear society would generate about a golfball sized hunk of stuff to be stored for each person's entire life worth of energy. That is TINY.

>> And no place is 100% safe.
:: Doesn't need to be. I said dangerous, not catastrophic. Your farts are dangerous. I don't see you trying to stash your bedroom away forever because you farted in it.

>> And you think that is a good thing?
:: Nope, I don't think it is good that you farted in your bedroom, but it is natural. And unlike coal waste which remains toxic for EVER, and wind-mill waste that remains radioactive for 14BILLION years, LFTR waste goes away in 300 years. Sounds good to me!

>> Ok, let's store it down the street from your home.
:: Fine.

>> Put it in YOUR backyard.
:: Sure.

>> And why not?? They'll be PLENTY of spent fuel to go around thanks to the pro-nuke parrots.
;; Only if the anti-nukes keep plying their stupidity on society and we keep making stupid decisions about SNF. SNF should be USED, not wasted.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#28 Jul 9, 2013
tea party rescue wrote:
<quoted text>Your argument is weak and in decline, give it up before you look like a fool.
Easy to say, but the numbers show that support for nuclear energy is INCREASING almost everywhere. It is your type of unreasoned blathering that is losing adherents left, right, and up the middle.

With statements like yours, it may be too late to stop yourself from looking the fool.
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#29 Jul 9, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Easy to say, but the numbers show that support for nuclear energy is INCREASING almost everywhere. It is your type of unreasoned blathering that is losing adherents left, right, and up the middle.
With statements like yours, it may be too late to stop yourself from looking the fool.
The world is watching the nuclear DISASTER continuing to unfold in Japan.

The toxicity leaking from the plant is showing higher levels of contamination then had been previously recorded.

People are MORE AWARE of the dangers of nuclear power plants and how they can contaminate crops, the water supply, and slowly kill people exposed to radiation.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#30 Jul 9, 2013
The world is watching as a worst case nuclear disaster results in... lots of gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands and very little else. They watch as anti-nuke inspired fear and over-reaction caused over 1000 deaths.

The Bhopal disaster killed some 4000 to 16000 people depending on who you ask. The death toll from Fukushima radiation is expected to be somewhere between ZERO and a few hundred. So the anti-nuke toll will be something on the order of 5 times as high as the worst case radiation toll. Thanks anti-nukes. We love you for your killing spree.

People around the world are beginning to realize that the anti-nukes have been lying to them for generations and they are getting sick of it. Even the anti-nukes are scrabbling to find new boogey men to scare us with. It is too bad they have lost all credibility since they MAY find a small issue and might be ignored to everyone's detriment. The anti-nukes are the "boy who cried wolf".
Your Ex

New York, NY

#31 Jul 9, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
The world is watching the nuclear DISASTER continuing to unfold in Japan.
The toxicity leaking from the plant is showing higher levels of contamination then had been previously recorded.
People are MORE AWARE of the dangers of nuclear power plants and how they can contaminate crops, the water supply, and slowly kill people exposed to radiation.
But the only reason we aren't building more is that they're prohibitively expensive (Billion+) and we have enough fissile material for a million multi-megaton weapons. Absolutely nothing to do with a sudden realization of the actual irresponsibility of nuclear power.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#34 Jul 10, 2013
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
But the only reason we aren't building more is that they're prohibitively expensive (Billion+) and we have enough fissile material for a million multi-megaton weapons. Absolutely nothing to do with a sudden realization of the actual irresponsibility of nuclear power.
Even with their large up-front cost, the are still much cheaper perkWh energy produced than any free market energy system save perhaps hydro-electric. But since hydro doesn't have to cover ANY of their disaster liability costs and nuclear does, I am not sure about that either.

Your "weapons" rhetoric is two decades out of date! There hasn't been a new nuclear weapon built by any of the major Nuke Club states in about twenty years. Nuclear power plants are BURNING nuclear weapons as we speak. Please get your facts straight.

Nuclear power is the MOST environmentally responsible way to sustain our civilization. All others are, and increasingly will be, demonstrating their extreme environmental costs. And Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the leanest, cleanest, greenest proven form of reliable energy bar none.

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

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#35 Jul 10, 2013
InSiDeR wrote:
<quoted text>Your dreams of nukes on every corner are elusive and will never happen. But you keep on railing for radiating the planet .
Don't be ridiculous, there is no need for a nuke on every corner. Such comments are unworthy of a rational person.

There are about 100 large nuclear power plants in the US. They create about 20% of the total electricity in the US. So, 500 similar sized Liquid Fluoride Thorium Recyclers (LFTRs) could end the burning of coal for electricity. And since LFTRs don't need cooling towers or cooling water from waterways, and since they don't have the need for the large isolation space, they would fit in the space currently used by existing NPPs.

LFTRs are the leanest, cleanest, greenest way to go.

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

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#36 Jul 10, 2013
InSiDeR wrote:
<quoted text>It has been detected in food already. Why do we need more of this ? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/us-...
Read the article. Note that:
There was about five times the background amount of cesium 137 in the bluefin tuna they tested, but that is still a tiny quantity, Madigan said: 5 becquerels instead of 1 becquerel.
The thing about radiation, we can measure down to itty-bitty, teensy-tiny amounts. Just because it is there, doesn't say it means anything.
Your Ex

New York, NY

#37 Jul 10, 2013
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Even with their large up-front cost, the are still much cheaper perkWh energy produced than any free market energy system save perhaps hydro-electric. But since hydro doesn't have to cover ANY of their disaster liability costs and nuclear does, I am not sure about that either.
Your "weapons" rhetoric is two decades out of date! There hasn't been a new nuclear weapon built by any of the major Nuke Club states in about twenty years. Nuclear power plants are BURNING nuclear weapons as we speak. Please get your facts straight.
Nuclear power is the MOST environmentally responsible way to sustain our civilization. All others are, and increasingly will be, demonstrating their extreme environmental costs. And Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the leanest, cleanest, greenest proven form of reliable energy bar none.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR
I agree about the LFTR's, they seem quite practical. I'll continue to believe that conventional nuclear power is an extremely myopic & irresponsible vision of the future of electricity generation for the country & the world. At least untill I see a solar array melt down and require the evacuation of a major urban area. ;)

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#38 Jul 10, 2013
Your Ex wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree about the LFTR's, they seem quite practical. I'll continue to believe that conventional nuclear power is an extremely myopic & irresponsible vision of the future of electricity generation for the country & the world. At least untill I see a solar array melt down and require the evacuation of a major urban area. ;)
Well, I am glad to see that you are at least not prejudise against "nuclear power" per se. Our differences seem to be on how dangerous LWRs can be. Given the emerging understanding that the Linear No Threshold model is bogus and the danger of a meltdown is mainly from the FEAR engendered by the lies of the anti-nukes, my estimate of the REAL dnger is obviously much lower than yours. YES there are potential dangers. No I am not saying a meltdown is safe. But it isn't the earth shattering catastrophy that many would have us believe.

None-the-less, after replacing coal plants which are undeniably dirty and dangerous, I would agree to replacing older LWRs with LFTRs rather than extending their licences. But to do that, we need LFTRs.

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
News Huge battery energy storage project for Herefor... 5 hr Solarman 1
News Local Green Energy Authority Quietly Launches i... 8 hr Solarman 1
News Energy: Solar power not producing results 8 hr Solarman 6
News 5 lessons activists can learn from Florida's su... 11 hr Babesss7333 7
News Households with alternative energy suppliers pa... Fri Solarman 1
News Are aliens draining solar energy from the sun? ... Fri Solarman 2
News Electrical Power Storage Technologies Market (f... Fri Solarman 3
More from around the web