SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   Obamas green Energy plan is not very popular (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=221332)

mapuc 08-03-15 06:32 PM

Obamas green Energy plan is not very popular
 
Have seen a lot about his plan for the futur energy in USA

From what I have read so far-Obamas plan seem to be not so popular.

I choose not to post links-There are links who are for and there's a link who's against it.

Markus

ikalugin 08-03-15 07:35 PM

I wonder what the plan entails.

Jeff-Groves 08-03-15 07:48 PM

FEMA Camps that burn bodies to produce energy for the rich.
:har:

Stealhead 08-03-15 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2333641)
I wonder what the plan entails.

https://www.google.com/search?redir_...=1438652286547

Oberon 08-03-15 08:57 PM

Of course it's not popular, Obama did it. :O:

razark 08-03-15 09:40 PM

Obama's <insert anything here> plan is not very popular.

Betonov 08-04-15 01:54 AM

I don't like green energy plans.
They are based on popular opinion and not data.

Catfish 08-04-15 07:24 AM

^ Of course, no scientific study is based on proper data – today.
Because those lobbies are everywhere, and a sample of 20 test subjects becomes statistically significant, in those 'studies'.

Also, as long as you outsource the last mineral and oil from the ground with the grossest methods, polluting everything and make the whole country look like a poisonous radioactive swamp, you will have the full support of the people. Or so it seems :03:

But then, medieval viewpoints die hard.

Jimbuna 08-04-15 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov (Post 2333691)
I don't like green energy plans.
They are based on popular opinion and not data.

Trying to avoid Soylent Green I should imagine :03:

Betonov 08-04-15 08:45 AM

There's a scientific way to have a green energy economy and we would already made progress on it.
But point scoring with the uninformed public is a great way to get re-elected and most of todays ''ecologists'' are about as uninformed as the die hard traditionalists.

Oberon 08-04-15 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov (Post 2333750)
There's a scientific way to have a green energy economy and we would already made progress on it.
But point scoring with the uninformed public is a great way to get re-elected and most of todays ''ecologists'' are about as uninformed as the die hard traditionalists.

It's persuading companies to continue making progress on it that's key, I mean cutting carbon emissions is a valiant endeavour I think, and really the main opponents are those in industries that produce heavy amounts of CO2, such as coal power stations and the like.

Of course, I think that governments should start putting money towards preparing for what's coming in terms of climate change and sea level rises. Because it's not going to be pretty and it's going to cost a lot of money on a regular basis.

ikalugin 08-04-15 11:31 AM

Well I mean, with the nuclear power problems US appears to have it is either more fossil fuels or going green.

mapuc 08-04-15 12:36 PM

Thank you for your reply.

I had hope for a positive or a negative answer about Obama´s green energy plan.

I know there are those Americans who dislike Obama and therefor dislike every idea he comes up with and they do this by automatic

There must be some who aren't against Obama, but have the knowledge about this green energy and current energy in USA

And can give a positive or a negative answer.

Markus

STEED 08-04-15 12:56 PM

I'm pro Nuclear Power in your face Cameron and Co. :O:

ikalugin 08-04-15 01:36 PM

And how is nuclear power working out in UK?

Schroeder 08-04-15 02:03 PM

Sooner or later we've got to go green anyway. We might as well do it while we still have time and fossil fuels in reserve. I don't want to wait for it to become a Greek model where everybody saw the end coming but no one had the balls to step on the brake.

ikalugin 08-04-15 02:23 PM

I think US should develop nuclear industry, or it would be left behind by various other countries, such as Russia in this regard.

mapuc 08-04-15 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2333827)
I think US should develop nuclear industry, or it would be left behind by various other countries, such as Russia in this regard.


Today the development in nuclear science have taken a huge step for ward since three mile island disaster.

In Norway there is this experimental reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoriu..._nuclear_power

Markus

Oberon 08-04-15 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikalugin (Post 2333821)
And how is nuclear power working out in UK?

Getting there, mostly French companies, EDF operate most of the stuff, GEC Alstom make reactors usually. I hear the Chinese are getting in on the market too, probably with the new reactors that are planned in the next five or so years, but it'll probably still be mainly French lead, they've got a good hold of the western european market, such as it is.

Betonov 08-04-15 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2333831)
Today the development in nuclear science have taken a huge step for ward since three mile island disaster.

In Norway there is this experimental reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoriu..._nuclear_power

Markus

I'm keeping an eye on thorium power.
If it sounds too good to be true it usually is, but when it comes to thorium things are actually being made.

Too bad hippies can't differentiate between the age of Chernobyl and last gen reactors.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.