Obama: Double Renewable Research Funding

February 6, 2016

31 Responses to “Obama: Double Renewable Research Funding”

  1. The devil is in the details.

    When he mentions Gates and Zuckerberg, he is pointing at NUCLEAR POWER as clean energy. Nuclear is not CLEAN.

    Obama is the biggest promoter of nuclear power in the world at this point.

    Hopefully the bill locks out nuclear and promotes only wind, solar and geothermal; truly CLEAN renewables.

    • kap55 Says:

      I read this the same as you, and typically the phrase “clean energy” by a politician includes nuclear. So like you, I see the doubling of R&D to be not just renewables, but to include nuclear in the mix. But that does not necessarily mean that the renewables-only portion of that does *not* represent a doubling. (It might.)

      We part company, however, on the idea that nuclear is dirty. It’s not. Nuclear “waste” isn’t waste if we don’t waste it. The existing stockpile of spent fuel contains enough fossil-free energy to power the entire US electric grid for more than a century, and there are reactors that could use it that way (http://www.transatomicpower.com), if we only had the sense to build them.

      • Ramon Gefaell Says:

        Listen : Nuclear doesn’t mean Fission but also Fusio (Cold Fusion) which is a non-emiting Clean and Very efficient Energy in,as many amounts, as all needed to cover Oil & other fossil fuels … Do it Now !!!!

        2016-02-07 18:48 GMT+01:00 Climate Denial Crock of the Week :

        > kap55 commented: “I read this the same as you, and typically the phrase > “clean energy” by a politician includes nuclear. So like you, I see the > doubling of R&D to be not just renewables, but to include nuclear in the > mix. But that does not necessarily mean that the ren” >

        • greenman3610 Says:

          if “cold fusion” – ie Low energy nuclear reactions, are a real thing, we will know very soon. One year trial of a commercial device results TBA in coming month or so.

          • OK ! let’s see ! but, not being a Physicist, if the reaction is, as they say and they suppose to be,Clean, We are about to discover the new Energy for Human’s Future.. Completed by the well technified new Renewables (extra-atmospheric Solar Power, -condensated and reflected by mirrors, and directly trencitted -fiber?-, and BIG Generators Accumulated-the transmitted, Wind Power, may well demonstrate what we ‘-amateur doc’s scientists waited and expected to find- , in order to Save the Planet’s possibility os a BIG FUTURE ENERGY’s HOPE..

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I’m not a physicist either, although I have an undergraduate degree in the subject and taught it to high school students for a brief period. I will repeat that fusion has been “just months away” or “just around the corner” for many years but we never seem to get there. Be hopeful, but don’t mortgage the house to invest in it.

        • markle2k Says:

          Fusion is not completely clean. Neutron bombardment creates radioactive nuclides and embrittles metals.

      • redskylite Says:

        Climate scientist: It would be ‘foolish’ not to embrace nuclear power . . . .

        We have to pull out all stops and address this urgent problem with everything we have including nuclear power, as appropriate to the location & situation. All non carbon energy sources should be on the table.

        ““We are alarmed by people who want to close the door on nuclear, and so that is why we are more outspoken than we might have been a few years ago,”


    • dumboldguy Says:

      No “energy” that relies on technology can ever be truly “clean”. (Ask Gaia)

      And you are showing your ignorance when you talk about geothermal being as clean as wind and solar. We don’t see many far left-wing ideologues on Crock, but you are certainly proving yourself to be one with your rabid anti-nuclear power ranting.

      Try to get in touch with the reality of the problem the world faces and the FACT that if nuclear power is not part of the mix we will likely fail to solve it in time.

      • pendantry Says:

        Such a debate could run and run, but… I guess I must be one of your ‘far left wing ideologues’, since I believe that any descendants of the human species that survive the current round of lunacy will despise us for having left them a legacy of these insanely dangerous toxic waste generators.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          By “insanely toxic waste generators”, I assume you are referring to the fossil fuel plants that we have built in such numbers over the past ~200 years? The ones that are now responsible for the deaths of 7 million people every year due to air pollution and the deaths of uncounted numbers of other residents of the biosphere because of AGW? Those?

          Yes, nuclear power generation has its issues, just as does nearly every technology developed by man since fire and the first stone or sharpened stick he used to club or stab some animal to death, but if we had gone whole hog with nuclear power 30 or 40 years we would likely not be staring extinction by climate change in the face.

          Those “descendants” might have a few places that they needed to avoid in that future world, but at least they might be around to “despise” us if we ramped up work on the newer designs of nuclear power plants, which generate fsr less toxic waste (and NO CO2).

          (And I must always remind everyone what good capitalists always ask when posed this type of dilemma—-“What have future generations ever done for us?”—-and its corollary, “I’m here now so I’m going to get mine first, future generations should have been born sooner if they wanted any”

          • dumboldguy Says:

            30 or 40 years AGO

          • pendantry Says:

            ‘No CO2’? Yeah, right, ‘no Co2’, in nuclear power plants which are made of… tonnes of concrete. And then entombed in more tonnes of the stuff, when they are finally decommissioned (at public expense: a cost deliberately excluded from the sums used to prove their generating potential *cough* “too cheap to meter”) . If they haven’t melted down first. You do realise that the more of these monstrosities we build (usually on shorelines, subject to rising seas, something else not factored in to the cost) the greater the likelihood that one of them will suffer catastrophic failure, right? (Simple probability will tell you that.)

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, NO CO2 in operation when compared to fossil fuel plants. ALL “plants” are made of concrete and steel, and even solar and wind “plants” are not CO2 free in terms of the production and transport of the materials needed to build them.

            However, fossil fuels require constant extraction, processing, and transportation, all of which produces much CO2 at every step. Compared to that, the CO2 burden of a load of fuel for a nuclear reactor every 18 months is nothing.

            And do YOU realize that the entire biosphere is at risk for “catastrophic failure” because of AGW from CO2 buildup from burning fossil fuels? Your hyperbolic anti-nuclear BS is based on your confirmation bias, and the probability of you being afflicted with CB is 100%. Reading your comment tells us that.

          • pendantry Says:

            You misunderstand. I understand entirely that the biosphere is in jeopardy because of the selfish greed of homo fatuus brutus to date. And having not learnt from one lesson, you’re advocating replacing one toxic waste power generating solution with another. I put it to you that it is not I who suffers from ‘CB’, but you, and others like you, who refuse to acknowledge that if we are to survive at all we must work in harmony with nature, and not exceed its limits.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You say I’m the one that misunderstands? LMAO!

            Thank you for again proving my point about your suffering from confirmation bias. This little eruption of hyperbole and supposed “argument” does exactly that, with your attempts to put your words in my mouth and other assorted logic fails.

            You continue to insist that using nuclear power as an interim measure until renewables can really take hole (they haven’t, and have a long way to go) is as “toxic” to the biosphere as burning fossil fuels. That is simply not so except in the world of those like you who suffer from misinformation and CB. Get educated. Read CLIMATE GAMBLE: IS ANTI-NUCLEAR ACTIVISM ENDANGERING OUR FUTURE, Parranen and Korhonen, (CreateSpace-Amazon) 2015—Amazon will print one just for you for ~$10.

            William Jennings Bryan and his “cross of gold” speech has nothing on your fine-sounding BS—-“…you, and others like you, who refuse to acknowledge that if we are to survive at all we must work in harmony with nature, and not exceed its limits”. Cue drum rolls and flag-waving!!!

            How long have you been visiting Crock? Perhaps you only read your own comments in any “depth”, but I have been one of many here (where’s jimbills lately?) who have discussed that topic in depth rather than as a rhetorical throwoff as you do here.

            Yes, YOUR confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance—-call it what you will—is much in evidence here. You need to accept that we have NOT worked in harmony with nature, Have exceeded the limits, and need to use more nuclear power right now (or would you instead advocate that we just give it all up and await doom?).

          • pendantry Says:

            @dumboldguy I think I’ve been visiting Crock longer than you have — not that that has any relevance at all. You could learn a thing or two, too:

            As I said, this argument could run and run; you’re convinced nuclear power is sane: I’m convinced it’s insane. So I’ll bow out now, because we can’t win.

          • I think you’re right in that we have lost the game, buti am Tottally agaisnt Nuclear Fission, nor Fusion, that just gains Energy, without harming radiactive emissions, and is, with some (seeminngly not so hard) technical problems -that I don’t and can’t uI thin , reality isnderstand-, because I’m a Doctor,not a Nuclear Physicist,

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Having been a supporting member of Greenpeace for many years, I am well familiar with their position as stated in this Resilience piece. They’re wrong, and there is much “duplicity” in this piece—-the deniers are not the only ones who shade truth—the more extreme on the left are guilty of it also. Read the $10 book I cited for good counter arguments to everything in the Resilience piece.

            Please come down off your high horse and stop making statements like “you could learn a thing or two”. I’m running out of perfumed sleeve hankies for people like you to sniff. I have been studying nuclear power and all environmental issues for 50+ years now, and know more than enough to reach informed some positions on nuclear power (although no one ever knows it all). Enough to have gone from being rather rabidly anti-nuclear myself in the 1970’s to now agreeing with Hansen et al. The substance of your comments indicates that you have little real understanding of the physics and biology of nuclear power beyond the biased info you find in your confirmation-bias driven searches.

            I’m going to bow out now too on “debating” with you—I’ve disagreed little if at all with anything else you’ve ever posted on Crock, and the fact that you are “convinced nuclear power is insane” makes it obvious that my efforts are wasted. And to correct any final mis-impressions you may have created, I will repeat that my position is that it is “sane” to look at nuclear power as a stopgap measure in this insane world that we humans have created.

          • First of all, I’m a sixty years old Spanish Cardiologist -nuclear cardiologist -, ( I wirte and speak quite well in spanish french and catalan not so well, less in English (l learnded it afterwards) though I -studied Medicine with english books , because they were better scientific books–, and I’m not ‘absolutely’ ‘Against Nothing’ but a hungrthy scientist of a glimpse f Hope for Humanity’s Future, and i recover all scientific sources of Recovery Possibilities to embraçe that hope.. Being science, and becauseof that, even not updated on Physics, I try to ‘make possible’ that Compact Fusion’, may well save the Earth’s Atmosphere, and its ‘thin’ Tolelranc to LIFE. Sorry, if I’m too optimisticm, and absolutely NOT, Economy worried.. !’

          • pendantry Says:

            You could learn a thing or two about not being patronising, yourself. Those on the ‘right’ are as devious, when it comes to misinformation, as those on the ‘left’ whom you despise so much. Peace, out.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            I assume you’re talking to me? It’s not clear. I’ll let other Crockers read our exchange here and decide who is more “patronizing”.

            As for “Those on the ‘right’ are as devious, when it comes to misinformation, as those on the ‘left’ whom you despise so much”, just exactly WHO is it that you think I “despise” so much? You are again apparently reading what you WANT to see into my words, not what is there, and that’s another sign of your confirmation bias.

            And “Peace, out”, you say? Does your confirmation bias also require you to have the last word? .

        • I am talking about Nuclear Cold Fusion, that needs some technical procedures to run, and be competitive, But that runs Without WASTE, a Clean, (and almost cost zero, after the reactor) Energy, that needs only Hydrogen and it’s heavy form, -trytium-,to run, with a Much Better effectivenes, and of course Without Killing Life on the Earth and Killing our 4500 million years tolerant Planet as DO, $ making murderers Fossil fuels..
          ….I’m only a Spanish -Europe- medical doctor,but I think, it’s really Time, once and for all , to Think in Life, and Not exclusively in making Money!! Please think so, and give the earth a last oportunity!! Thank You !

          • pendantry Says:

            Pinning our hopes on unproven, untested technology is folly.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Rejecting a proven, tested technology like nuclear power in the face of looming CAGW is the real folly. That’s why Hansen at al stated that we needed to ramp up our use of nuclear power ASAP. And they did that knowing that nuclear power has some warts and is not the prettiest girl on the block (but she DOES know how to dance).

          • Of course, we can’t rely on unproven ‘MIRACLES’ and ‘beauties’ of non-demonstrated clean energies.., BUT as I red in your answer before, next month or so, will end the BIG Cold Fusion TRIAL, and we’ll see !!..In any case, at least,.. ,you can’t say that Today’s Energy, that is abourt to KILL AEROBIC LiFE Irreversibly in JUST two human generations !!!! (and that’s Horrible,not the first of considrartions.. PLease, Someone with four Healthy Neurones, is Very Urgently Needed

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Yes, fusion (both cold and hot) might help to save us from ourselves. Unfortunately, it has made little progress in the 50+ years since research began, and is still far from being practical. IMO, it is distracting us and delaying what we should be doing—-developing and deploying GEN4 nuclear fission as a stopgap measure until we can develop enough renewable energy sources and eliminate use of fossil fuels.

  2. Yes, the President of the US is Right in its Renewables actions, but : ¿When Stop Fossils and shift to Cold Fusion and Renewables to save the Planet?? and when the endorsement to Scientists whithout money implications?

  3. j4zonian Says:

    What we really need is massive amounts of money for deployment of clean safe renewable energy, now.

    I suspect the reason Obama is pushing research is because it is in fact meant mostly or entirely for nuclear (and supposedly non-dirty coal?), maybe using renewables as a cover, which means he’s doing exactly what he’s done with every single climate action he’s undertaken his whole reign–put real action off til later. and give breaks to huge corporations tied to the energies of the past. This seems like simply another despicable action by him, dressed up as doing something.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Channel Marco Rubio much? (Or are you appearing to do so as a sly joke? If so, well done!—-love that “despicable action dressed up as doing something”—TJ would be proud)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: