tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post9138259896063981158..comments2023-06-20T01:49:29.525-07:00Comments on Blogging About the Unthinkable: Is Obama's Energy Plan Enough?Sovietologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09099598091505738702noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-69075843108545497202008-11-23T07:14:00.000-08:002008-11-23T07:14:00.000-08:00Yep. That's the problem. Not only is Obama's energ...Yep. That's the problem. Not only is Obama's energy "plan" obscure, but it's heavily nuanced as well (as all of his rhetoric is).<BR/><BR/>Frankly, I felt more comfortable with McCain's "45 new nuclear plants." Although it was sadly insufficient (in my opinion), at least it established a real, concrete goal that was likely to be achieved, since the NRC already expects applications for <A HREF="http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf" REL="nofollow">34 new units</A> between 2007 and 2010.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Obama says: "We will tap nuclear power, while making sure it's safe." What the hell does that mean?! It could mean anything!<BR/><BR/>Obama's only concrete promises are to spend (waste?) money and to set targets for reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by 2020 and 2050 -- two deadlines so far in the future that the first is long after Obama leaves office and the second won't come around until possibly after Obama is dead. (He used to be a heavy smoker until a year ago, after all.)<BR/><BR/>I predict that this will be a windfall for various "renewable energy" firms, like GE's wind division, which used to be "Enron Wind." These companies will pull in a lot of government money, a few people in the "renewable energy" business will <A HREF="http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSHI06327720070820?feedType=RSS&feedName=inDepthNews&rpc=22&sp=true" REL="nofollow">get very rich</A>, but the results in terms of energy produced will be quite meager. If the government changes its mind or does a poor job in distributing these handouts, the smaller of these companies will ultimately declare bankruptcy, just as the Luz Corporation did in 1991, after building the Solar Electric Generating System (SEGS), beginning in 1984, which is still the largest concentrating solar power project in the US. The government will then be forced to step in to revive these disastrous projects, just as California stepped in to revive the SEGS after Luz's failure.<BR/><BR/>The larger companies will increasingly withdraw from such projects as the government handouts dry up and their failures begin to hurt the corporate bottom line. GE is enthusiastic about wind only as long as the taxpayer is fitting part of the bill.<BR/><BR/>Obama's "plan" is actually relatively moderate when compared to the experience in Europe. For example, I haven't heard any discussion of feed-in tariffs, which Germany has used to become the world leader in renewables such as solar and wind. Nevertheless, the experience in Germany has demonstrated that even this is not enough, since Germany (along with Italy) is now <A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081118/sc_afp/italtgermanyeudiplomacyclimatewarming_081118174223" REL="nofollow">calling for relaxing European Union rules for reducing greenhouse gas emissions</A>, because they "have too heavy an impact on our businesses." Apparently, large government incentives for renewables are incompatible with heavy industry and a robust economy.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't stop there, however. This heavy investment in wind and solar has dubious environmental benefits as well. Germany's carbon-dioxide emissions per capita are 60% higher than those of France, which depends on nuclear for almost 80% of its electricity. (Germany's carbon-dioxide emissions are also 60% higher per GDP/PPP.) Meanwhile, Germany (and Italy too) has some of the highest costs for electricity in the western industrial world.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's a good thing that Obama's plan is not as aggressive as Germany's.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, mandates and edicts that have deadlines beyond the term of the current administration mean nothing. Sure, anyone can <EM>promise</EM> to get 25% of electricity from "renewable" sources by 2025, but later, as the consequences are felt and the fecal matter hits the rotary impeller, it is just as easy (or even easier) for someone else to cancel these promises. After all, didn't California promise almost 20 years ago to have Zero Emission Vehicles by now? Where are these vehicles? They were supposed to comprise at least 10% of the vehicles on California's roads by 2003.<BR/><BR/>Of course, Obama will probably also push for efficiency, but he does so at his own peril. It is difficult for me to imagine a second Obama term if he pushes efficiency too much. The last two presidents to heavily promote efficiency (also during difficult economic times) were Carter and Hoover, both one-term presidents whose terms in office could be most kindly described as "mediocre" at best.<BR/><BR/>In summary, Obama's energy platform, as it appears today, will involve government pork spending that will be wasted on "solutions" that have proven themselves time and time again in the US and in Europe to be nearly worthless economically and environmentally.<BR/><BR/>To quote William Tucker, author of <A HREF="http://www.terrestrialenergy.org/" REL="nofollow"><EM>Terrestrial Energy</EM></A>: "Obama's energy policies are a recipe for disaster. If he clamps down on coal without permitting nuclear power to take its place, we'll be stuck trying to run the country on windmills, which will be a national introduction to elementary physics."<BR/><BR/>Although I think that most of America (particularly the spoiled yuppie innumerate "Green" brats who read and believe silly books and donate to Greenpeace, etc.) could use a few good lessons in elementary physics -- especially the second law of thermodynamics -- I would prefer this lesson to be less painful for all of us.Brian Mayshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13962229896535398120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-4476879567888460712008-11-22T20:31:00.000-08:002008-11-22T20:31:00.000-08:00"Electric cars cost the equivalent of 60 cents per..."Electric cars cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and can conceivably be charged using electricity generated from solar or wind. Green technology would not only provide clean cheap energy it would create millions of badly needed new jobs."<BR/><BR/>I disagree in the strongest possible terms<BR/><BR/>Wind and solar power are not cheap, and probably aren't even self-sustainable. It is highly unlikely that those sources would be able to power their own munufacturing requirements, let alone produce enough net output to run a modern economy's current electrical infrastructure, and expecting them to be able to run the transport sector as well is just insane.<BR/><BR/>We need reliable power which is genuinely cheap, plentiful and clean. Nuclear power is the only source which fits the bill.Finrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02447747229391757964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25995363.post-54402631184855705662008-11-22T13:06:00.000-08:002008-11-22T13:06:00.000-08:00WE must make more of an effort in this nation to b...WE must make more of an effort in this nation to become energy independent. Not enough credit is being given to the high gas prices this past year and it's serious damage on our economy and society. That one factor alone has caused serious stress in both individuals and businesses. A record number of homes and jobs have been lost as a direct result. And, while we are doing the happy dance around the lower prices at the pumps OPEC is announcing cuts to manipulate the prices upward again. We must get on with becoming energy independent.We can't take another year like this past. There is a wonderful new book out about the energy crisis and what it would take for America to become energy independent. It covers every aspect of oil, what it's uses are besides gasoline, our reserves, our depletion of it. Every type of alternative energy is covered and it's potential to replace oil. He even has proposed legislative agenda's that would be necessary to implement these changes along with time frames. This book is profoundly informative and our country needs to become more informed and move forward with becoming energy independent. Electric cars cost the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to drive and can conceivably be charged using electricity generated from solar or wind. Green technology would not only provide clean cheap energy it would create millions of badly needed new jobs. The Book is called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence NOW by Jeff Wilson. Our politicians all need to read this book.<BR/>www.themanhattanprojectof2009.comBeyondGreenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747686313911392716noreply@blogger.com