Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: New clean energy fuel base. TechEnergy independence. End of fossil fuel dependence. Send the links inside viral.

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 17, 2012, 11:29 a.m. EST by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

Thanks for the link 1 points by ClearView (43)

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what I am talking about when I say we need to push for a new clean fuel base, to save our world and end fossil fuel dependence.

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

Uranium-Fueled Light-Water Reactor Fuel Uranium fuel rods Fuel input per gigawatt output 250 tons raw uranium Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million Coolant Water Proliferation potential Medium Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone

Seed-and-Blanket Reactor Fuel Thorium oxide and uranium oxide rods Fuel input per gigawatt output 4.6 tons raw thorium, 177 tons raw uranium Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $50-60 million Coolant Water Proliferation potential None Footprint 200,000-300,000 square feet, surrounded by a low-density population zone

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated) Coolant Self-regulating Proliferation potential None Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone

89 Comments

89 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

is the homepage text written for robots ?

[-] 2 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

That's a wonderful goal. I support it wholeheartedly. Before going off what might be the deep end, one should take a long look at the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

We would love to have electric cars and trucks. I know I would. Unfortunately it would take more burning of fossil fuels to create the necessary electricity to power those cars and trucks than is burned now by the gasoline and diesel fuel.

Please check this out. I'm pretty sure I'm right.

We surely need to push for a cleaner power base. I'm somewhat at a loss to make any suggestions, however.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

Even if the electricity source was 100% coal (the worst of all polluters} electric cars are still more efficient and cleaner. http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/electric-vehicles-cleaner-than-gasoline-anywhere/15002

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That's why it is good to have contributions like:

[-] 1 points by shooz (4067) 3 hours ago

I thought you were wondering what the detractors might say.

You know I'm with you on this stuff.

I'll give ya a bump and raise you an E CAT and an LFTR.

http://ecat.com/

Sorry, I have miss quoted this as LFNR. the T stands for thorium. It's a "clean fission" option.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 - This was in reference to clean fusion generators. Thanks again shooz.

Also if the tech works as advertised: Scale-up the process that was used to power the Hydrogen House. I'm not even sure of the process that was used to fill the cars fuel cell. These are the kinds of things to explore in pushing this technology forward. If they can build an effectively Hydrogen powered house ( a stand alone system ) I don't see why that same technology process could not be applied elsewhere in other applications.

[-] 0 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

Again, unfortunately, it takes a lot of electricity to extract hydrogen from water. Where are you getting your electricity to do that? 50% of the electrical energy in the country comes from the burning of fossil fuels. We seem to be begging the question here.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Why are you asking Me? Am I the font of all knowledge?

Go to the working source (s) and ask. http://www.hopewellproject.org/ and http://ecat.com/

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The fuel cell cars look good, but I think we would eventually need nuclear power to produce the fuel on a wide level.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That's why it is good to have contributions like:

[-] 1 points by shooz (4067) 3 hours ago

I thought you were wondering what the detractors might say.

You know I'm with you on this stuff.

I'll give ya a bump and raise you an E CAT and an LFTR.

http://ecat.com/

Sorry, I have miss quoted this as LFNR. the T stands for thorium. It's a "clean fission" option.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1 - This was in reference to clean fusion generators. Thanks again shooz.

Or scale-up the process that was used to power the Hydrogen House. I'm not even sure of the process that was used to fill the cars fuel cell. These are the kinds of things to explore in pushing this technology forward. If they can build an effectively Hydrogen powered house ( a stand alone system ) I don't see why that same technology process could not be applied elsewhere in other applications.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I think that to have hydrogen powered cars we would first have to have fission power on a wide scale, and recycle the nuclear material as much as possible.

Eventually we would want to go towards fusion, since it is clean, but much more powerful than fission. I think we would need an infrastructure based on fission first, that would be powerful enough to allow us to progress to fusion.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes. There must be a starting point and then a follow-through with continuous process improvement/development. The thing is we have what looks like all of the pieces to begin right now to start the process.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

What to do about the anti-nuclear movement? Its very strong, I think it has the support of global finance. Anti-industrialism was originally the stance of the British corporate empire, which today we call Wall Street and the City of London. Its intention was to reduce America's independence, and still is today.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The anti-nuclear movement is exactly one that needs to know about the alternatives that are available now to support and drive forward as well as the anti-fossil fuel people. As well as the pro-environment people. Every group looking to create a better healthier world. Each step forward in creating and using cleaner technology is a step towards clean technology. Constant continuous process improvement. We have been stalled on the move forward for too long.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, that's true, but are you going to start posting information here about those ideas? I've seen almost nothing here so far that is pro nuclear energy. People might consider it off topic.

Many people here relate to the idea of being pro industrial though, and rebuilding our manufacturing base. They see it as being related to creating jobs. They need to realize that we need more clean energy to create and better jobs.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is all related. The other postings are out there. I myself will publish/advertise this information on to other various social media sources as to help spread awareness. I encourage others to do the same. Posts can get lost here. Some visitors do a remarkable job of scrolling through what is available, but not everyone is so inclined.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Ok, I'll try to post some information on it as well:

There will be no economic recovery in the worldwide without a commitment on the part of the US to the development of nuclear power and fusion research. Presently experiencing a revival world-wide, nuclear energy offers a higher energy-flux density than any other form of power mastered by man. This is not simply a matter of increased efficiency: the power afforded mankind by the transformations of nuclei is not the same power produced in the combustion of coal. Rather, this higher power allows entirely new industrial and energetic processes, including direct use of nuclear reactions qua nuclear reactions for the production of new radioisotopes.

http://larouchepac.com/nuclear

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you for taking part. We have to do it. Because corporate owned media will not.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4647) 2 years ago

Hi DKA, Excellent. Will send this on. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks. This could be our World changer, as well as a uniting common cause for all.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

This won't work if its a non profit corporation. Even if the technology is feasible, there is no incentive for the owners to continue the endeavor. Charity will only go so far

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well now there's a fine start. Who says no one makes money in a not for profit. They do. They make a good living. Ask those who work at one. I'm sure there must be a credit union or something near by. They just don't try to rape their customers as their method of doing business.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Raping customers? No one is forced to buy anything in this country. Go buy something and then try and tell me how you were somehow raped with your voluntary purchase

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The whole economy is tied to Fossil Fuel. Think again.

Thank you for playing, please come again.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

No, the whole economy is people taking raw materials and turning them into goods that they can trade to another person for profit.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Using what as a power source, using what for some of the raw materials.

Fossil Fuel is tied into every Business there is. Gasoline Electricity Heating and cooling transportation............everything. The only break we are getting is the contribution of green technology starting to supply some power.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Fossil fuels are just carbon-hydrogen bonds- there's nothing special about them. Those bonds, when broken, release energy. ANY kind of energy source is simply matter that is doing this- breaking chemical bonds to release energy. In addition, there is no 'free' energy. Fossil fuels had to be created using the same amount of energy that they will release when the bonds are broken. Simply put, an energy source is simply matter that is in a convenient form for humans to use. I mean hell we can produce energy from literally millions of different sources- all it is is releasing energy from the molecules that are storing it. What really matters is the price of energy, which is irrelevant in nominal terms. Even though oil is ' cheap' now, it will be way more expensive in real terms compared to the energy sources of tomorrow. When oil runs out, there will be demand and enormous incentive to invent a new process for people to use energy- not inventing a new energy source but a new process that uses the existing energy on earth. We are already seeing the precursors of the new te unpopular that will be far cheaper to use than oil.

It doesn't matter that fuel is integral to every aspect of our economy- 200 years ago- human and animal energy was integral to our economy, and oil was useless. However over time, human energy 'ran out' because human muscle power couldn't power the factories and machines necessary for those societies to function, so when we invented processes to use oil, we overcame the burden of running out of animal energy. We will soon overcome the burden of running out of oil, because we will invent a new way to use the existing energy present on earth

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Instead of te unpopular it should say technology. Stupid autocorrect and lack of up or down arrows on my iPhone to edit.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What the hell are you raving about?

Alternative energy is what this post is about.

We have new sources, we have working technology.

Now we have to use it.

Period.

[-] 0 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

We will when the price point is right. There's no oil crisis- people will shift to alternative energy when oil gets too expensive. It will happen in the blink of an eye, and people will barely register that there even was an oil 'crisis'

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Great post! You rock, DKA!!!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thank you GF. But the credit really belongs to: Thanks for the link 1 points by ClearView (43)

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ok. In the hopes that ClearView will see this:

Thanks, ClearView!!! You rock!!! :D

And they say I'm grumpy. :P

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sorry if I gave that ( Grumpy ) impression. I would love to take credit for this awesome link. I really do appreciate "YOUR" positive response to my advertising of it.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I didn't think you were being grumpy at all. Someone else noted my grumpy disposition. I was .....being cheerful.

Damn the internet's lack of ability to convey emotion.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

My bad. I thought maybe you felt I was being grumpy because I didn't accept credit.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

lol

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I know! Dumb Hey?

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

DKAtoday could you tell us trolls the main idea. or just tell us one example of how he get the power for his car?????? hydrogen? balloons of hydrogen on the backyard? WTF? He fucking living at the explosives. Renewable? what are you talking about! http://occupywallst.org/forum/are-there-any-engineers-in-this-forum/ ?????????????

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

Gasoline vapors are also an explosive. But unlike gasoline ihydrogen will explode and be over...gas will spill and spray and continue to burn. Hydrogen fire is dangerous because you cant see the flame, so a slow leak under pressure with an ignition source is bad. Much reseach is going into how to store the hydrogen in a weaker bound molecule than is water. Another solution might be to have soft tanks that would not be under pressure and would allow the gas escape easily into atmosphere making explosion less likely, and to include materials that would act as fire suppressants.

The fuel cells for creating hydrogen are currently designed to use petroleum gases and so they still pollute, plus they create a whole lot of waste heat, which could be captured for winter heating, but would suck in the summer.

Long term storage of hydrogen is not practical since it leaks through everything...i just read about a new material that can keep helium from leaking, but hydrogen is a single atom... Thus, it needs a way to be regularly generated. Solar is good, but the manufacturing process uses a lot of harmful chemicals.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

i dont know what to say =) the fuel cells does not create hydrogen but create electricity using electrodes in chemical reaction with water. And to say "they create a whole lot of waste heat, which could be captured for winter heating" is absolutely nonprofessional. In winter time i always leaving my desktop computer ON to create an extra heat and download a whole lot of....

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

I dont know what you mean by nonprofessional... Fuel cells do generate a high amount of heat, and the process does use petroleum gas to extract the hydrogen to create the electricity... If you go to the florida solar energy center online they have excellent resources for research available to help understand the units that have been created for homes, business, and fuel cell automotives.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Contact the source there is a link or two on this post.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

i dont need to contact the source. ok. i clearly can see H2 logo on the car to understand what power moving it. Why you people so naive? where he get hydrogen from to call it renewable energy. Im so stupid, could you provide me the link Where Is The F Source Of F Hydrogen?????

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

He is using electrolysis with electricity from solar panels, and on the linked site you can see he stores hydrogen in large tanks around the hyd house. The site also says he creates enough hysrogen to refuel the car, so the car may not be generating hydrogen.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

i dont believe in brainwash media. as far as i know producing hydrogen is hard process. EducateYourself http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

I dont understand what you are referring to about brainwash media.

Electolysis is not hard, but it is not energy efficent especially if you have to burn something to produce the electicity used for it. Solar is considered free energy but there is a high cost to capturing it because solar panels and equipment to make the electricity useful are expensive compared to mass generated power. Solar panels also dont have a very long life...they lose effectivity over time. I think the guy this thread is about uses the solar electricity to both create a battery store and to create hydrogen.

[-] 1 points by timirninja (263) 2 years ago

the solar is the source, overall you are right. Many people believes that solar energy is the fancy way out of the energy hunger. Solar rays are falling down on the solar panel. Half of them are reflecting away. another half heating up the panel and get regenerated in electricity into electronic elements. There is no way to transfer illumination which is captured by the the panels. solar battery productivity depends on 1) quality 2) quantity of elements 3) of course depends of sqare =) like in real life!

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 2 years ago

It is good, not great, and they are improving the technology and efficiency, but it does not yet get us off coal, oil, or nuclear power sources.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Water is the source, water is to say the "OIL" to be processed.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I suggest you do so yourself.

From your wiki source article: Hydrogen technologies are technologies that relate to the production and use of hydrogen. Hydrogen technologies are applicable for many uses.

Some hydrogen technologies are carbon neutral and could have a role in preventing climate change and a possible future hydrogen economy.

Hydrogen is not in and of itself an energy source, because it is not naturally occurring as a fuel. It is, however widely regarded as an ideal energy storage medium, due to the ease with which electric power can convert water into its hydrogen and oxygen components through electrolysis.

The potential environmental impact depends primarily on the methods used to generate the hydrogen fuel.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

looks really good, hope they are incredibly successful with this

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Lets help by advertising. Let the world be aware.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Yes DKA, I agree, but the dinosaur energy companies like it just the way it is. Their lobbyists 'pay' congress to keep the status quo. Change will only come about when we change our corrupt government. Personally, I think a change to a Direct Democracy is the only way, the peoples' voice will EVER be heard again. Keeping the same system ensures "More of the same".

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is an issue that can unite. This is common cause for "ALL".

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

It is a common cause for all ..................... except congress and the energy companies. They are the one's that make the rules. Don't get me wrong; I really think this is exactly the business the US SHOULD embrace. The problem lies in getting congress to represent 'the people' instead of oil companies.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And so this is why we are here, this is why we are needed.

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Sen. Sanders Leads Effort to Clamp Down on Oil Speculators

Rampant speculation has artificially pushed up gasoline prices to nearly $4 a gallon. Sen. Bernie Sanders “is fighting back,” ABC News reported. A letter signed by 70 members of Congress – 23 senators and 47 members of the House – told federal regulators to enforce provisions of the Wall Street reform law and curb speculation in crude oil markets.

They stressed that gasoline prices are up despite high supplies and low demand. According to the Energy Information Administration, the supply of oil and gasoline is greater today than it was three years ago, when the national average price for a gallon of gasoline was just $1.90. Today, the national average is more than $3.70 a gallon at a time when the demand for oil in the U.S. is at its lowest level since April of 1997.

Citing a recent report from Goldman Sachs, a major oil speculator, Forbes magazine said excessive oil speculation adds $.56 to the price of a gallon of gas. Exxon Mobil, the Saudi Arabian government, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America and the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis agree excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gasoline prices.

http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100084830.557414.184&gen=1&mailing_linkid=44565

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

3/04/2012 - Protect us from fracking petition. Support HR 1084.

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=7674

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A new Day? A fresh start?

World changers unite!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hydrogen Folks. Good for you good for the world!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Check it out! Kill the Beast!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Environmental and Economy game changer! World changer!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is the future available to start immediately - Today.

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

The Hopewell Project is aptly named: both a beacon of hope and a wellspring of scientific and technological prowess. Hopewell, NJ is also the location of one of our signature projects, the Solar-Hydrogen Residence. Without creating emissions, this home’s energy system covers all of a typical family’s needs without relying on any outside fuel source—fossil or otherwise, foreign or domestic. This demonstration project shows that the technology to power our homes and communities with clean, safe, reliable, renewable resources is currently within our reach. In short, the future is now.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

New clean energy fuel base.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago
[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

3/23/2012 - President is on the wrong track - Tell Him. Communication is essential. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542118&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=9


President Obama's speech in Cushing, OK is a slap in the face to those of us have fought Keystone XL. President Obama is touting his efforts to drill more, and expedite the southern portion of Keystone XL — although they will do nothing to reduce high gas prices. Send an email directly to the Obama Campaign demanding real leadership for our climate, not cheerleading for Keystone XL or dirty oil. Take action now! CREDO Action | more than a network, a movement.

President Obama: Stop cheerleading for Keystone XL and dirty oil.

Dear Dan,

Yesterday, President Obama took his "all of the above" energy tour to Cushing, Oklahoma — the "pipeline crossroads of the world." Standing in front of piles of TransCanada's pipeline waiting to be put in the ground,1 he issued a specific memorandum to federal agencies, not just to build, but to "expedite" the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the refineries and shipping ports in the Gulf Coast.

He also bragged that "we are drilling all over the place, right now" and that "we've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some."2

Send a message to President Obama: Be a leader on climate, not a cheerleader for the disastrous Keystone XL Pipeline.

The President has unfortunately always pushed for the southern portion to be completed, even as he rejected the full Keystone XL pipeline saying he had insufficient time to evaluate it. But in issuing a memorandum to speed up that process, he's signaling a willingness to backtrack on his initial (and minimal) condition of a full review for Keystone XL.

Such a public announcement in Cushing to promote Keystone XL is a slap in the face to those of us who worked so hard to convince President Obama to reject Keystone XL in January. And it gives fuel to the cynics who said that that rejection was just an attempt to temporarily placate the environmentalists and young people who believed his campaign rhetoric about the need for real action on climate and our fossil fuel dependence.

Watching the President stand in front of the piles of pipeline, it's hard to believe this was the same President who said after the Gulf oil spill "we cannot afford not to change how we produce and use energy," or who said as a Presidential candidate, "the age of oil must end in our time."

If there was ever a clear moment to register our disappointment, this is it.

Send a message to President Obama: Be a leader on climate, not a cheerleader for the disastrous Keystone XL Pipeline.

President Obama's oil-rich, "all of the above" message is clearly a response to political pressure. His advisors think that he'll suffer at the polls if he's perceived as failing to take tough action about gas prices. And so they're working to showcase his support for Big Oil. But the "all of the above" strategy just digs us in deeper. We all know the only way to get out of the hole we're in is a dramatic shift away from more drilling and bigger pipelines and to a massive investment in renewable energy like wind and solar.

The fact is, President Obama's trip to Cushing shows that he is failing on gas prices. Oil prices are up because of speculation, irresponsible talk of war with Iran, and rising demand for gasoline in countries like China and India — not because of a lack of dirty tar sands oil. And any policy that deepens our dependence on oil puts us at the continued mercy of oil prices that we can do little to control, and oil companies who have every incentive to keep prices high, not just now, but forever.

This is the problem with the southern portion — or any portion — of Keystone XL, and the problem with "all of the above" in general. As the ever-wise Bill McKibben wrote this week:

And if you think about it, "all of the above" is not a particularly coherent energy policy, not if one worries about climate change. Burning all the oil you can and then putting up a solar panel is like drinking six martinis at lunch and then downing a VitaminWater. You're still a drunk — just one with your daily requirement of C and D. If a presidential candidate said they had an "all of the above" foreign policy, where every other nation was an equal ally, they'd be thought lightweight or even dangerous. But with energy, it apparently seems politic to insist we need never make a choice. Or at least to tailor your talking points to your audience.3

Tell President Obama: Be a leader on climate, not a cheerleader for the disastrous Keystone XL Pipeline. Send an email message to his campaign now.

While the southern portion of Keystone XL does not turn up the spigot of tar sands bitumen that can be transported out of Alberta, Canada, and it does not threaten Nebraska's crucial Ogallala Aquifer, it does ultimately accomplish the biggest goal of Keystone XL — to connect with the existing tar sands pipeline from Canada, and finally bring the landlocked tar sands to shipping ports and the global market so it can be burned across the globe, leading to disastrous climate impacts.

Ironically, building the pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma — where there is currently an excess of stored oil due to expanded domestic and tar sands production — will reduce supply in the Midwest and actually raise gas prices by an estimated 20 cents!4

But President Obama is so determined to use the southern portion of Keystone XL to show that he's taking aggressive action to promote fossil fuels, he's issuing an executive order to federal agencies to expedite approval.

Once the southern portion is built to the Gulf, it is only a matter of time before oil companies like TransCanada figure out a way to get more oil out of the tar sands and to the Gulf for export. And then we'll be one step closer to "essentially game over" for the climate.5

As President Obama returns to Washington from Cushing, and as his Headquarters in Chicago endures a record-shattering heat wave, let's urge the President to find the courage to bring real leadership on climate, and let his campaign know our bitter disappointment over this significant misstep: http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542118&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=9

Thank you for fighting Keystone XL.

Elijah Zarlin, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets

  1. "Keystone XL Pipeline: Big Oil Leans On Obama To Approve Entire Project," Huffington Post, March 21, 2012 http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542123&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=11

  2. "Obama: 'We've Added Enough New Oil And Gas Pipeline To Encircle The Earth'," Think Progress, March 22, 2012 http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542634&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=12

  3. "Mr. Obama Goes to Cushing, OK," Bill McKibben, March 21, 2012 http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542114&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=13

  4. "Keystone Oil Pipeline Seen Raising Gas Prices in Midwest: Energy," Bloomberg, February 29, 2012 http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542115&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=14

  5. "Key Facts on Keystone XL," Tarsands Action http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5537622&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=15

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is what I said ( what will you say):

http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5542118&id=37167-4904244-U2q%3DKmx&t=9


President Obama's speech in Cushing, Oklahoma is a slap in the face to those of us who hoped President Obama would show real leadership on climate.

Any policy that deepens our dependence on oil is a failure at addressing gas prices. President Obama should lead on climate by aggressively moving us away from policies and projects like Keystone XL, not by caving to political pressure on gas prices and cheerleading the southern portion of Keystone XL, which ironically will raise gas prices in the midwest by as much as 20 cents a gallon.

This is where we should be going: Green Energy we have the technology we just need to use it. This is what I am talking about. A clean future to be implemented NOW!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/

http://ecat.com/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

FuelCell Energy http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts.cfm/pa_id=600

[+] -4 points by DKA4today (42) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Place to push for better technology? You Bet!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://action.ucsusa.org/site/R?i=xE27MED9UQXMY85SpN03aA

RSVP Today! Join UCS experts on March 19 for a critical discussion on the future of nuclear power in the United States. RSVP

Event Invitation National Nuclear Power Safety Briefing—March 19

Dear Dan,

More than 115 million Americans live within 50 miles of an aging nuclear power reactor—and that means that we all have a direct stake in improving the safety and security of these power plants. For that to happen, more people need to get informed and hold accountable those responsible for our health and safety.

Please join us for a special, one-hour discussion examining the key issues surrounding nuclear power in the United States and policy recommendations for making nuclear power safer, more secure, and better regulated.

National Nuclear Power Safety Briefing Monday, March 19 4:00-5:00 p.m. (EDT) RSVP Today

Hosted by UCS President Kevin Knobloch, the phone briefing will include remarks from UCS experts.

Dave Lochbaum, director of the UCS Nuclear Safety Project, and Ellen Vancko, manager of the UCS Nuclear Energy & Climate Change Project, will discuss our work on both nuclear power safety and economics, respectively. I will provide an update on our nuclear power safety campaign and what we hope to accomplish—with your help—in the coming months and years.

When you RSVP for the briefing, you may also request a Nuclear Power Citizen Advocacy Tool Kit that includes some of our most recent analysis and issue fact sheets, as well as a number of other "how-to" resources such as tips on how to contact policy makers and submit letters to your local newspaper.

We look forward to your participation in next Monday’s briefing.

Sincerely, SeanMeyer_jpg Sean Meyer Manager, UCS Nuclear Power Safety & Security Campaign UCS Global Security Program

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A functional/functioning guide to health and prosperity?

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Jump on board!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is why we are here, this is why we are needed.

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Could it be better than this?

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Shout it to the world!

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No support from supporters of positive change?

Whats up with that?

Only two supportive comments in all of my attempts to engage the excitement of the supporters of a healthy and prosperous world for all. Why is that?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I thought you were wondering what the detractors might say.

You know I'm with you on this stuff.

I'll give ya a bump and raise you an E CAT and an LFTR.

http://ecat.com/

Sorry, I have miss quoted this as LFNR. the T stands for thorium. It's a "clean fission" option.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

[-] -2 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

No that's fine it is good to understand what detractors would say. Thanks also for additional links to progressive power sources.

What I can't understand is the lack of involvement "here".

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Some people just like to get hung up on the negative aspects of everything.

It's easy enough to do, with all the negative things happening, but bright lights are there, if you care to look.................and look , you will have to, as the MSM never seems to so much as mention it, unless they were paid to.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is one of our goals, isn't it?

To awaken people to the prospect of a better world, if they would just take part.

Now, here are concrete examples of how to move forward in developing and implementing energy independence and end the poisoning of our world.

These things should pump excitement into the ability to effect real change, and that, right now!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

One of the nice things about LFTR, is it's ability to neutralize our existing nuclear waste. It would be worth further development, just for that.

You can also literally flip a switch to shut it down.......safely.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

This is what I am talking about. Clean and safe. No stockpiles of radioactive waste ( spent fuel ) building up and the only way to make it safe is to let it degrade over time = 100's & 1,000's of years.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There's complete explanations of LFTR on youtube.

I think they are in development, or under construction in India and China.

What type are these new plants we are going to build here?

The kind that yields plutonium, I'll bet.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I don't know about the one that just got approval to be built ( I believe to go on-line in 2014 ). All I know about this one so far is that it is supposed to contain the developed safeguard technologies that were in use in Fukishima. I would bet that it is still the same old fuel source technology.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

My guess is, they like to play with plutonium, plus it's sale and refinement are another income stream..............>shrug<.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

For some reason, clean energy is just not profitable. Investors have lost billions of dollars. ICLN, which is an index that tracks clean energy companies, has last 80% of its value in just the last 4 years, and obviously a lot of companies have gone under. The price of oil is going to have to really go up to make people want to put more money into clean energy.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Without tax breaks and subsidies, a gallon of gas would cost $10.00 at the pump. That is the real price, but it's hidden from consumers. (Not the mention the price of the destruction of the environment.)

If those subsidies and tax breaks, which we are all paying for, were to end, the motivation to produce green energy would increase exponentially, and the prices of the technologies would come dramatically down due the economies of scale.

Green tech is very new here in the States. It is not in much of Europe, where a combination of more stringent conservation regulations, high at-the-pump fuel costs, and more developed alternative energy strategies have made going green cheaper and more viable there.

If the US would stop artificially keeping oil prices down, there would be a lot more progress here.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (28267) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Hopewell denies that assessment, with working technology.

At the very least people should be investigating these claims.

http://www.hopewellproject.org/ People send this link viral!!!!!!!!!!!