Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Maslo55

(61 posts)
Sun Jan 1, 2012, 03:51 PM Jan 2012

Obama primary opponent Bob Greene: Calif. man has energy plan for U.S. for next 1000 years [View all]

DOVER — Democratic presidential candidate Bob Greene is hoping to use his lesser known campaign to raise awareness of greener energy sources he says could provide energy for the next 1,000 years for Americans.

Born and raised in Massachusetts, he received his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Wyoming. He currently lives in Mountain View, Calif., but when he made the decision to push his position on cleaner energy policies, he opted to put down the $1,000 and take a stab at running for president.

This is Greene's first time running, and he's not sure if it's his last, but he certainly wants the world to know his position on thorium — a natural radioactive chemical element he hopes can change the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

A piece of thorium the size of a golf ball would be enough to provide energy for one person for their lifetime, he said.

"I see this as an issue of national security," he said. "We can stop oil wars if we do this. We can change our import economy to an export economy."

He said if such a plan went through, he could see it rejuvenating the manufacturing industry in America with new jobs to create these plants.

Source:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20111230/GJNEWS_01/712309949

---

Obama completely ignored the huge potential of LFTR to make America energy independent ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html ), and his energy policy was not much of a policy at all. This candidate endorses a truly progressive energy vision to once again put America on the world forefront of energy innovation.
If not, we will have to buy it from the Chinese, who already started their LFTR development program.

More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Great idea! Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #1
LFTR power Maslo55 Jan 2012 #2
Geeezzeeeee - here we go again... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #3
Its like asking Maslo55 Jan 2012 #4
Doesn't make sense... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #6
You do not understand NIMBYism... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #8
A whole lot of assumptions there bob txlibdem Jan 2012 #10
And then they'll look at the solar panels on their roof... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #11
Without adequate excess capacity *and* energy storage, wind / solar will never get us off fossils txlibdem Jan 2012 #14
You have zero basis on which to make that claim... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #19
Which claim are you even talking about? Do you have proof? txlibdem Jan 2012 #27
Without existing, gen IV nuclear will never get us off fossils FSSF Jan 2012 #23
What is the title of this OP? Is it "Let's talk about what we have now?" No. txlibdem Jan 2012 #28
Because if LFTR performs as expected Maslo55 Jan 2012 #16
And if elephants could fly... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #20
Never saw the movie "Operation: Dumbo Drop?" txlibdem Jan 2012 #34
Around the corner... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #36
The failure of a 1960s design is the basis of your argument? txlibdem Jan 2012 #41
There are 104 nuclear reactors running fully-insured in the US right now wtmusic Jan 2012 #43
Please be specific kristopher Jan 2012 #9
Two fluid Maslo55 Jan 2012 #17
I'm sorry, I thought I asked for specifics. kristopher Jan 2012 #21
specifics are in the links Maslo55 Jan 2012 #24
Some things. FSSF Jan 2012 #25
FSSF has already provided some important points for you to consider... kristopher Jan 2012 #30
There are far more problems Maslo55 Jan 2012 #32
Actually there aren't. kristopher Jan 2012 #37
LFTR Maslo55 Jan 2012 #38
Prove it. kristopher Jan 2012 #39
here you go Maslo55 Jan 2012 #40
That doesn't support your claim. kristopher Jan 2012 #42
People in the solar industry think they can get solar at or less than the cost of coal much faster. FSSF Jan 2012 #22
"to build the largest manufacturing industry in the history of mankind" kristopher Jan 2012 #29
K&R. wtmusic Jan 2012 #5
Road apples... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #7
So you think it's ok to villainize people just for disagreeing with your anti-nuke views? txlibdem Jan 2012 #12
Nut jobs... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #13
Your post is offensive txlibdem Jan 2012 #15
You haven't noticed all the people... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #18
So you're not against misleading people, just as long as it's not toward the pro-nuclear side txlibdem Jan 2012 #26
You are doing the math wrong... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #31
And Maslo55 Jan 2012 #33
Yep. Some of it is really expensive... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #35
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Obama primary opponent Bo...»Reply #0