Obama... On energy from the Debates

So... the Libs sit around in a circle looking 10-years into the future with their semen covered alternative energy crystal ball and see wind and solar as the answer... yet when Republicans said we need to exploit our ample natural assets and drill, and build new refineries... what did the Libs say?

Can't do it... that's 10-years into the future. That was almost 20-years ago, and look at our fuel prices today.
They stop Keystone.

The 5:38 to 5:58 mark is Obama doubling down and looking 10-years ahead. My question is... since when have energy sources been mandated by government? How often have these futurists been wrong? The cone of uncertainty says the further out you go... the less likely your predictions will be correct. But... Obama is Nostrildamus. O knows energy, like he knows shovel ready jobs.


Alternative energy is more expensive and is no solution to running America. It might be good for running a fridge, but we need it to run a nation of 300,000+ million and its industry. You know (Libs)... the stuff jobs are dependent on.

I guess Obama telling us to inflate our tires just didn't work out as expected.

I am sure that Obama can spell Nostradamus very well.

SMTA said:

I am sure that Obama can spell Nostradamus very well.

Click to expand...

I assumed it was some sort of racist joke.

BayToBay said:

I assumed it was some sort of racist joke.

Click to expand...

Really? Do you jump to racism for everything you don't understand?

You do realize by the time we drill enough oil, it'll be out dated?

Also oil is cheap, not worth the effort to drill better to outsource. Same story with coal, it costs more in environmental damage then it does good producing energy as of now.

Nuclear energy is the future, for that Romney does get pts.



...oh btw Obama was for drilling oil, till the gulf incident. Quite the wake up call. Difference between the risks of drilling oil and using nuclear energy is nuclear may actually pay off in the future.

shiang said:

You do realize by the time we drill enough oil, it'll be out dated?

Also oil is cheap, not worth the effort to drill better to outsource. Same story with coal, it costs more in environmental damage then it does good producing energy as of now.

Nuclear energy is the future, for that Romney does get pts.



...oh btw Obama was for drilling oil, till the gulf incident. Quite the wake up call. Difference between the risks of drilling oil and using nuclear energy is nuclear may actually pay off in the future.

Click to expand...

Thorium is actually the future... that, and fusion.

Rainman05 said:

Thorium is actually the future... that, and fusion.

Click to expand...

well you probably mean fission starting with Uranium decay into Thorium then into Radium. Might be one more decay, been a while. But yes nuclear energy is the future, thousands or more times powerful than chemical energy. Once we get that figured out then we need to find effective ways to store the energy, can't exactly have nuclear reactors in every car.

AliHajiSheik said:

Really? Do you jump to racism for everything you don't understand?

Click to expand...

No. I don't go out of my way to miss the obvious though. It does not seem likely to be a misspelling. What's the meaning?

shiang said:

well you probably mean fission starting with Uranium decay into Thorium then into Radium. Might be one more decay, been a while. But yes nuclear energy is the future, thousands or more times powerful than chemical energy. Once we get that figured out then we need to find effective ways to store the energy, can't exactly have nuclear reactors in every car.

Click to expand...

Fusion. Deterium gas fusion to be precise... which if it will work, you can move on to hydrogen fusion which is what happens in the sun.

RealClearScience - California Fusion Reactor is 'Miniature Star on Earth'

Fission is the splitting apart of atoms... which happens in nuclear reactors and thorium reactors and all that.

Fusion is the combining of atoms.

BayToBay said:

No. I don't go out of my way to miss the obvious though. It does not seem likely to be a misspelling. What's the meaning?

Click to expand...

Obvious how?

zimmer said:

So... the Libs sit around in a circle looking 10-years into the future with their semen covered alternative energy crystal ball and see wind and solar as the answer... yet when Republicans said we need to exploit our ample natural assets and drill, and build new refineries... what did the Libs say?

Can't do it... that's 10-years into the future. That was almost 20-years ago, and look at our fuel prices today.
They stop Keystone.

The 5:38 to 5:58 mark is Obama doubling down and looking 10-years ahead. My question is... since when have energy sources been mandated by government? How often have these futurists been wrong? The cone of uncertainty says the further out you go... the less likely your predictions will be correct. But... Obama is Nostrildamus. O knows energy, like he knows shovel ready jobs.


Alternative energy is more expensive and is no solution to running America. It might be good for running a fridge, but we need it to run a nation of 300,000+ million and its industry. You know (Libs)... the stuff jobs are dependent on.

I guess Obama telling us to inflate our tires just didn't work out as expected.

Click to expand...

Yeah - I have thought of that 'ten years away' crap many times. Since Carter took ANWR off the table 40 years ago, we could be enjoying the fruits of thirty years of that production by now - yet they are still saying "it wouldn't produce anything for TEN years."

I have all the support in the world for 'green' energy development. But it does NOT have to be done in a "Manhattan Project" crisis mode. We probably have a hundred years to develop and optimize it correctly, meanwhile continuing to fuel our economy with the fossil fuels we have under our own feet.

This 'green energy' wild goose chase the POTUS is on is designed not to produce energy for America - it is to provide kickback funds for his buddies who are charging hell-bent down every hair-brained scheme they can concoct. The the feasibility or their plans make no difference. If they can label it "green" then and if they can promise Obama a ton of kickback money - they will get all the money they want from the US TAXPAYER. Win-Win for Obama - FREE MONEY.

DEMs are the greedy ones - corrupt to the core.

oh - and the "inflate your tires" campaign from Obama.

when I first heard that, I LOLed, and then began screaming at my TV = ASK OBAMA WHAT IS THE PRESSURE IN HIS TIRES !!!!!!!

You KNOW they wold have done this to Bush - but nobody ever checke to see if Obama even knew what a pressure gauge looked like, nonetheless how to use one or what the pressure in his tires was that he 'checks' on a regular basis.

Rainman05 said:

Fusion. Deterium gas fusion to be precise... which if it will work, you can move on to hydrogen fusion which is what happens in the sun.

RealClearScience - California Fusion Reactor is 'Miniature Star on Earth'


Fission is the splitting apart of atoms... which happens in nuclear reactors and thorium reactors and all that.

Fusion is the combining of atoms.

Click to expand...

And you really think any of that is feasable within ten years?????

I am sure we can do it in laboratory conditions, but the safety issues alone can not IMHO be solved for the scale required to replace oil/coal/gas in ten years. Heck, we cannot even agree on how to dispose of the limited nuclear waste we produce with the current technology.

That does NOT mean we should not continue - with haste - to develop those capabilities and address those issues. All I am saying is that the "promise" of nuclear fusion being the long-term solution does not mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot while waiting for the 'long term' to eventuate.

Rokkitsci said:

And you really think any of that is feasable within ten years?????

I am sure we can do it in laboratory conditions, but the safety issues alone can not IMHO be solved for the scale required to replace oil/coal/gas in ten years. Heck, we cannot even agree on how to dispose of the limited nuclear waste we produce with the current technology.

That does NOT mean we should not continue - with haste - to develop those capabilities and address those issues. All I am saying is that the "promise" of nuclear fusion being the long-term solution does not mean we should shoot ourselves in the foot while waiting for the 'long term' to eventuate.

Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe it can be done in 10 years.

We needed about 15-20 years to make the first nuclear reactor that would provide power. So the first domestic use of nuclear energy. And that was in the 1950's when the focus was on making nuclear armament...

Now, we know more about atoms and how they work than we did 70 years ago and this is a focused enterprise.

Maybe we won't see the first reactor made in 10 years, but I think the work, the project to build the first reactor can happen in 10 years.

SMTA said:

I am sure that Obama can spell Nostradamus very well.

Click to expand...

Nostril-damus... done flewed over yer hed.

shiang said:

You do realize by the time we drill enough oil, it'll be out dated?

Click to expand...

We have plenty of oil to run us for 200 years.

Also oil is cheap, not worth the effort to drill better to outsource.

Click to expand...

*FACEPALM*

So you believe we should get rid of millions of jobs in the future? :doh

Same story with coal, it costs more in environmental damage then it does good producing energy as of now.

Click to expand...

Wow, little sense, a lot of BS!! :doh

Nuclear energy is the future, for that Romney does get pts.

Click to expand...

Oil is the future. Sorry, to much BS!

...oh btw Obama was for drilling oil, till the gulf incident. Quite the wake up call. Difference between the risks of drilling oil and using nuclear energy is nuclear may actually pay off in the future.

Click to expand...

:doh You are really crazy.

AliHajiSheik said:

Obvious how?

Click to expand...

Obvious, that it is not a misspelling.