Barack Obama calls for clean energy push

[Turborama]

Source: BBC

US President Barack Obama has called on his Democratic party and other supporters to back a government campaign for clean energy. In a statement made as he visited areas affected by the BP oil spill, he said the US must "embrace a new future".

=snip=

In a statement aimed both at paid-up Democratic Party members and at millions of individuals who backed his 2008 presidential bid online, the president asked his network to lend their name to a campaign to change the way America produces and consumes its energy.

=snip=

In Monday's statement, the president was clear about the need for changes to energy policy. "Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month - including many in dangerous and unstable regions," he said.

"In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardise our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help."

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10313921.stm

---

This is the online campaign the article is referring to: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/cleanenergy?source=20100610_BO_misc

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/cleanenergy?source=20100610_BO_misc">

[MineralMan]

1. A good call to action. One which will be ignored by the

Republicans and many on the left. A pity, that. It's something that needs as much support as we all can muster.

[onestepforward]

12. I agree.

What better time to push for alternative energy?

This oil tragedy has been draining my heart and spirit and this doesn't help anything. I'm ready to shift my energy toward a positive goal. I would hate to see all the suffering that has occurred and will continue to occur be for nothing.

Repubs. will say "no" to anything Obama and they can just stay behind. I want to move forward.

[No Elephants]

2. the BP disaster was part of a 3 dimensional chess move.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

4. Exactly...

... this has been part of the "set up", make BP and the other oil companies pay for reorganizing/grid updating that is necessary for hooking up the wind turbines to the grid. There is movement in congress to take away the tax exemptions of the oil companies to the tune of $35 billion or more over the next ten years, as I recall. Put that money into LONG TERM gains!

[Titanothere]

8. Never let a crisis go to waste eh?

Glad the Gulf Coast can take it on the chin to move an agenda forward. Bullcrap. Is he seriously using this catastrophy to raise money?

[Turborama]

9. Where is there any mention of him "using this catastrophy to raise money" ? n/t

[Titanothere]

16. You're right, not raising money persay, but using his campaign mailing list

to push legislation that'll move a LOT of money from one industry to another.

Basically he needs to avoid the appearance that he's using the enormity of this spill to push one industry over another because he does have the ability to influence this whole operation.

I think the administration didn't have any oil industry experience so they didn't handle it as well as they could in the beginning, regarding getting all available help in asap and not just thinking that BP could handle it, regardless of what line BP fed them. They need to do everything they can to get this under control, and then place blame and consider alternatives after the worst is over. Otherwise he's going to risk the appearance that he might have let it get "kind of bad" in order to skew the argument one way or another.

[snooper2]

3. He should have done this sooner

he should have done more...

Too little too late...

Yeah, more Bush-lite proposals...


Blah blah blah.... There, I typed it for you so you can same the Intertubes from a couple wasted bytes.

[zipplewrath]

5. He hasn't proposed anything yet

There's little here to discuss, much less support. It is devoid of details. What does he propose? Many on the left have been screaming for something along this line. Is that what he's proposing? Or will he reject the progressive ideas an prefer old GOP ideas from 15 years ago?

Bill Gates has an outline for what he thinks needs to be done. It costs alot of money. Is that what Obama is proposing?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. He has the sludge (Congress) to contend with

If it were up to him it would have been done long ago. When one has to deal with Congress it is a different matter. The GOP want oil.

[Bragi]

7. So does this trump the "BP escrow account" demand?

Sorry, but Obama is scrambling, and the White House is all over the map on this.

So here's my litmus test: if the President is serious about alternative energy policy, then he will not cancel the deepwater drilling moratorium in his speech tomorrow night, and he will suspend his earlier decision to allow increased drilling.

Okay? That will make his commitment clear.

Otherwise, for me, all his bluster is just more crap.

(Yeah, I'm still mad about the Gulf. Sorry to be so non-bipartisan.)

- B

[Triana]

10. Well here's a clue President Obama...

..GUESS WHO uses the most oil and gas in the United States?

The Department of Defense.

?

[Turborama]

11. They're already on it...

Navy Taps Oceans for Power

April 2010

By Grace V. Jean

As the Navy dives headlong into the challenge of meeting its alternative energy goals within the next decade, technologists are striving to help the service harness solar power trapped in ocean waters to generate electricity for its shore-side bases.

Facilities ashore consume a quarter of the Navy’s annual energy resources. Most are powered by the U.S. electrical grid, which relies on fossil fuel generators. In addition to being tied to the turbulent prices of foreign oil, the grid infrastructure is vulnerable to hacker attacks, says R. James Woolsey, senior advisor at Vantage Point and former co-chair of the Defense Science Board’s study on energy and defense.

Naval installations are shifting to grids powered by renewable energy sources, says Rear Adm. Philip Cullom, director of the Navy’s fleet readiness division. Within the next 10 years, officials plan to generate half of the service’s shore-based installation energy requirements from alternative sources.

“This is where renewables make a huge difference,” says Cullom, who is leading the Navy’s task force on energy. Officials intend to boost the use of solar, wind, ocean and geothermal energy sources on bases and in some cases also supply power to the U.S. grid.

The link at the top of this page goes to the full article: http://siswebs.org/water/story.php?title=Navy_Taps_Oceans_for_Power

Previously posted here: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236771&mesg_id=236771

---

Algae to solve the Pentagon's jet fuel problem

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 February 2010 16.04 GMT

The brains trust of the Pentagon says it is just months away from producing a jet fuel from algae for the same cost as its fossil-fuel equivalent.

The claim, which comes from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) that helped to develop the internet and satellite navigation systems, has taken industry insiders by surprise. A cheap, low-carbon fuel would not only help the US military, the nation's single largest consumer of energy, to wean itself off its oil addiction, but would also hold the promise of low-carbon driving and flying for all.

Darpa's research projects have already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon. It is now on track to begin large-scale refining of that oil into jet fuel, at a cost of less than $3 a gallon, according to Barbara McQuiston, special assistant for energy at Darpa. That could turn a promising technology into a market-ready one. Researchers have cracked the problem of turning pond scum and seaweed into fuel, but finding a cost-effective method of mass production could be a game-changer. "Everyone is well aware that a lot of things were started in the military," McQuiston said.

The work is part of a broader Pentagon effort to reduce the military's thirst for oil, which runs at between 60 and 75 million barrels of oil a year. Much of that is used to keep the US Air Force in flight. Commercial airlines – such as Continental and Virgin Atlantic – have also been looking at the viability of an algae-based jet fuel, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/28/china-algae-carbon-capture-plan">as has the Chinese government.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem

Previously posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4388701&mesg_id=4388794

(Edited to fix broken link)

[BonnieJW]

14. We can now take bets

on which oil company will purchase this technology and shelve it.

[Odin2005]

13. Talk is cheap.

[Turborama]

15. Daily Kos Diary and Alternet article on this...

Both are well worth a read...

Obama pushing clean energy bill: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/14/875828/-Obama-pushing-clean-energy-bill

Will Obama Use the BP Catastrophe to Push for Climate Change Legislation?: http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/06/14/will-obama-use-the-bp-catastrophe-to-push-for-climate-change-legislation/

Center for American Progress have some good suggestions, too: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/reform_opportunity.html

[defendandprotect]

17. We need to renew Moritorum on off-shore oil -- and nuclear ...

If this is the way the oil industry is behaving, imagine what's going on in the

nuclear industry --

and be assured NO WAY ANYONE COULD COVER THE DAMAGE FROM NUCLEAR ANY MORE THAN WE

CAN COVER THIS DAMAGE FROM OIL!!

We have to stop judging everything by the yardstick of a dollar bill--

Nature is all and there is no way to "pay" for it or "buy" it -- !!