Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGreen Living · 1 decade ago

Obama "Green" Energy plan - your thoughts?

Here's a link to Obama's energy plan: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_sp...

Here's what I think:

Whilst I am sure Obama wants CLEAN, SAFE energy,

I am far from certain the people are going to get it.

There is no such thing as "safe nuclear power..."

Obama should offer incentives to industry so they develop handy, efficient alternative energy production and storage kits, using a wise combination of solar (especially for hot countries) (round cells / collectors embedded in roofs, walls... not panels) (note: solar work on day-light), wind (i.e. mini-turbines, with paddles, not blades), and water power (EG. water wheels fitted in mains pipes) - there is plenty of profit to be made selling these and the savings made by not investing in a new grid will more than cover incentive payments.

This way, domestic and business users will be self-sufficient and the USA will have Energy Security i.e. nobody will suffer power cuts

EG. during ice storms, flooding...

Investment in solar technology really needs to be stepped up hugely.

If we find the perfect way to a) create light b) use photons to generate electricity c) store that power - all our transport needs will be solved.

That energy source could also take us to Mars and beyond.

So instead of politicians concentrating on how to keep fossil-fuel suppliers in the money, and protecting that, whilst ignoring market needs, Obama should prepare the USA

(and the rest of the world)

for the new generation of transport which does not require the carrying of flammable / explosive fuel, which is very heavy...

(More FREE info. my website: http://www.the-alternative.org.uk Chapter 6:Energy / Alternative)

http://www.physorg.com/news111670954.html

Update:

E.F.Hutton: I strongly disagree with your answer. We do get electricity from light - that is how solar works.

And I repeat, nuclear power is NOT safe. "If the public knew the facts and if they were allowed to chose between nuclear power stations and candles, they would chose candles."

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    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.

  • 1 decade ago

    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.

  • KylieV
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    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.

  • 1 decade ago

    i think it is a bunch of bull ****

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    great- ill believe it when i see it

  • 1 decade ago

    i love him

    Source(s): myself
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.