Comments on: Obama "Green" Energy plan – your thoughts?

By: RedisSupreme

RedisSupreme — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:34:59 +0000

I really disagree with the above poster. It’s always productive to search and try new methods to solving our problems. It’s how science works. We may invest a great deal of time and effort into a single promising approach only to have it fail in the end. But then we’d know more and can better prepare a new one.

My only complaint is that Obama seems determined for our renewable energy sources to be developed here. There are actually two very promising energy plans being done in the UK and Canada atm. One involves tides and the other man made tornadoes. It made not be made in America but good ideas are good ideas regardless of where they come from.

Fuels for cars do need to be reliable and rather set as they require massive amounts of infrastructure. But what the above poster fails at realizing is that what is needed is a better way to produce electricity. If we can do that in a cleaner fashion it’s much easier to make use of cars that can use existing and proven technology.
References :
Earth!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power
Wind!
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080625-pf-vortex-engine.html
Water!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
Go planet!

By: E. F. Hutton

E. F. Hutton — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:47:59 +0000

There most definitely IS safe nuclear power.
Nevertheless. It is not the function of government to direct the energy industry. Stealing from the taxpayer to promote energy sources select politicians prefer is wrong. And is often times due to financial interests of those same politicians. It is best left up to the free market.
The company/developer/inventor of the next great thing stands to profit greatly. Competition drives innovation. These "alternative" energy sources have been in development for decades. Research goes on every day at energy companies, universities, and in people’s basements. When an energy source is practical, safe, available, and affordable the public will embrace it automatically. Government interference will only hamper the efforts.

Create light, use the photons to generate electricity… science fiction. Creating light requires energy. It’s foolish to invest in ANY technology. If we pour money into solar, while hydrogen proves to be better, we have wasted time and money. It is best left alone.

The reality is that fossil-fuels are available, affordable, reliable, and they work. When something else can effectively compete we’ll see a shift. Wind power for example is becoming more promising all the time.

More valuable in the near future is the continuing trend for decreasing demands on energy. ALL of our ‘stuff’ is the most energy efficient it has ever been. That alone has a tremendous impact of energy availability and prices.
References :

By: Brendon Urie <3ER

Brendon Urie <3ER — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:06:59 +0000

i think it is a bunch of bull shit
References :

By: Hace R

Hace R — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:47:59 +0000

i love him
References :
myself

By: ♥JAX♥

♥JAX♥ — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:29:59 +0000

great- ill believe it when i see it
References :

By: Right is Right

Right is Right — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:55:59 +0000

My first thought is he should practice what he preaches, it shouldn’t be do as I say not as I do. He has a couple of gas guzzlers himself and the new official limo (tank – The Beast) built especially for him at the cost of 2-5 million dollars gets approximately 10 mpg.
References :