Obama said he supports wind, solar and smart grids (but was mum on nuclear power)

[jpak]

His goal is to double production of alternative energy over the next three years.

on edit: and weatherize/insulate 2 million American homes.

on edit edit: and upgrade federal buildings to improve energy efficiency.

Just what the doctor ordered...

:thumbsup:

[yardwork]

1. Good on all four!

[bobd0]

2. I know the nuclear industry claims the "new" nuclear power is safer

But I can't help being a bit skeptical considering the current "fallout" from coal industry waste we're witnessing in Tennessee. Just imagine a similar scenario with nuclear waste. There are too many alternative energy sources to explore to justify the risk of nuclear, IMO.

[truedelphi]

6. It is "safer - but only in THEIR dreams

And it certainly is not safer in our nightmares.

Plus if we ramp up the use of our nuclear power plants, we will quickly deplete the uranium supply that is currently predicted to be able to last thirty years.

Then the nuke industry will get their campaign on -- to turn our national park lands into scrap heaps, as every uranium molecule is scraped from the earth, leaving landscapes obliterated and water downstream radioactive.

[quidam56]

7. And THE COAL INDUSTRY has a newer clean hybrid coal technology goin on...

Would much rather see nuclear than to watch my mountains being decapitated, all for the love of money. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Bush is a toxic terrorist, they've bombed, blasted and bulldozed Appalachia right into Third World America.

[bobd0]

11. There is no clean coal. There is no safe nuclear power.

We are surrounded by almost limitless alternative sources of energy. I firmly believe that if we put the same resources into their development that the energy industry has put into coal, oil, and nuclear we wouldn't need coal, oil, or nuclear.

If we'd started thirty years ago imagine where we'd be today. The sooner we get started the better.

[jpak]

12. "Clean Coal" was something else Obama was mum about

:hi:

[napoleon_in_rags]

21. That may even be beside the point. What I've heard is the cost of ....

... constructing the plants is astronomical. Very soon its all going to be about what works now, with very little money to spend. I don't see our current "way of life" as far as energy usage continuing. Some changes need to be made to how we live and work.

[glinda]

3. Couldn't help but cry a couple tears of joy this morning

when I heard that come out of his mouth at the beginning.

[jpak]

4. It's been a long time comin'

Only 12 more days to go...

:hi:

[FredStembottom]

5. Good catch, jpak!

I hope that that represents his permanent views on nuclear! just not on the table.

[GliderGuider]

8. The only reason to ever consider nuclear power might be in the context of climate change

As this was a speech about the economy, nuclear power had no place in it. Alternative energy development doesn't just funnel gobs of cash to an engineering elite the way nuclear power does. Alternative energy is much more broadly based and the economic activity is much closer to ground level. Most importantly, alternatives address all three fronts of the converging crisis: the environment, the energy crunch and the economic collapse. That makes alternatives the clear winner, and nuclear power the sore loser.

It's about time.

[phantom power]

14. Then again, climate change *is* part of our context.

Also, I would dispute the concept of "engineering elite." Nuke plants are made of machinery, bricks and mortar, just like wind turbines or automobiles. There's nothing very "elite" about most components of a nuke plant.

Good speech, though. He's got the right idea. Leverage the links between jobs, energy and environment.

[GliderGuider]

16. Yes, but only one part of it.

IMO alternatives are more effective as a full-spectrum response. And Obama neatly avoids the "Isn't safe, is too!" debate.

[GliderGuider]

9. IMO that may have been one of the greatest Presidential speeches since Kennedy.

Finally, a president is telling the truth, and doing it in complete sentences!

[jpak]

10. What you said

:toast:

:hi:

[bananas]

19. Video of the speech now posted in Political Video forum

with a link to the transcript:
"Obama's Hopeful Economic Speech"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x257377

[madokie]

13. And wasn't reading one word of it

that I could tell

[phantom power]

15. It feels good to not be ashamed of my president (elect).

[madokie]

17. Yep and he's not ashamed of us either

Politics as usual will stop as today shows he will not play Washington's game. He talked straight up about what got us here and why. Something Washington toadies aren't used to doing.

[TheWraith]

18. Obama has been on the record as supporting nuclear power. nt

[NNadir]

20. Actually, there was a great video of Obama confronting a dumb fundie anti-nuke in Vermont.

It was during the campaign.

If, in fact, Obama's policy is to engage in more wishful thinking about the failed so called renewable energy industry, the inevitable result is that he will fail on energy and climate change.

But I am optimistic that he will not fail, although he has been wrong on somethings already.

I note, with some trepidation, that his coal to liquids policy as expressed in his Senate career was ill advised and counter productive and his bill with Bunning represented the worst possible energy policy, almost as bad as when Schroeder announced the German intention to expand coal and gas indefinitely.

However I expect Obama to do the right thing on nuclear energy. His energy secretary is hardly a dumb fundie anti-nuke who is incapable of comparing two numbers.

I'm sure that the members of the incoming administration can compare the energy output of the South Texas nuclear plant with the solar electricity output of the entire United States.

Solar energy is a failure because of physics considerations, most notably energy density, but also chemistry and the thermodynamics of energy storage.

Wind energy is a failure because they're having an awful time getting the things to stand up.

http://jp.dk/uknews/article1277616.ece

Out of more than 5000 windmills in Denmark, only 5 are 30 years old, and nearly 2000 have failed.

The infrastructure is useless, since the entire nation's HYPED wind capacity can barely produce as much energy as the Oyster Creek nuclear reactor, which has functioned reliably since 1969.

I expect the new President to make energy mistakes, of course, but I have a feeling I'm going to end up, after 8 years of more useless blubbering from dumb fundie anti-nukes (much like the last 8 years of blubbering) with a hell of lot to laugh about, mostly because to the detriment of the dumb fundie anti-nuke cults, the President elect is rational.