There's something to like - and hate - from both Presidential candidates' energy proposed energy policies. Neither one makes me particularly happy, really, and both seem to be playing to their constituents. Big surprise that! Let's touch on some specifics. Unfortunately, McCain, other than his recent press releases, seems to be rather vague, so forgive me if I screw this a tad.
On the plus side, but candidates are talking about energy independence. This is something loooong overdue and really should have been considered by some other administration as far back as the 1970s after the OPEC embargo induced price shock. Kudos for them both for at least making the right mouth motions and air exhalations. At least they both say they want to do this.
Obama puts out some good proposals. One of them is the renewable energy requirements: 25% of electricity being renewable by 2025 and the embracing of biofuels, especially the cellosic ethanol. McCain's made mouth motions too about this, but not to the same degree and not as concretely.
McCain does something a little braver in one respect. He claims to have embraced nuclear power in a big way. He wants to increase the number of nuclear reactors by 45 by 2030 from the 100 something now. Obama pans this one. Oh, he doesn't outright reject it, but he does rather poo-poo the idea. Nuclear power just isn't a seller among the Democratic base generally.
Both of them, much to my gut wrenching sickness, state they want 'clean coal.' While I recognize that coal is a vital, current member of our energy mixture, I don't think it really belongs to our future whatsoever. Clean coal requires so much research its ridiculous. You know that carbon sequestration demo coal power plant that DOE was developing? The one that most of the world was excitedly waiting to see if it would solve the CO2 emission issue on a per plant basis? Well, it was cancelled. Why? The costs were spiraling out of control. It's necessary budget doubled without much work getting done to well over a billion dollars and nearing two. This one strikes me a near impossibility to reach and I cannot like any proposal for this. *shrugs*
However, I have to express my skepticism about anything proposed for after any administration's tenure. At best, Obama will have been out of office for nine years (a full administration cycle and a bit) by then and who knows whether or not his successor will continue said policy. This criticism is for McCain, too, btw, with his prognostications about 2030, 14 years, nearly two (!) administration cycles.
blast. Out of time. Meeting coming up and I have a fully booked day after that.
On the plus side, but candidates are talking about energy independence. This is something loooong overdue and really should have been considered by some other administration as far back as the 1970s after the OPEC embargo induced price shock. Kudos for them both for at least making the right mouth motions and air exhalations. At least they both say they want to do this.
Obama puts out some good proposals. One of them is the renewable energy requirements: 25% of electricity being renewable by 2025 and the embracing of biofuels, especially the cellosic ethanol. McCain's made mouth motions too about this, but not to the same degree and not as concretely.
McCain does something a little braver in one respect. He claims to have embraced nuclear power in a big way. He wants to increase the number of nuclear reactors by 45 by 2030 from the 100 something now. Obama pans this one. Oh, he doesn't outright reject it, but he does rather poo-poo the idea. Nuclear power just isn't a seller among the Democratic base generally.
Both of them, much to my gut wrenching sickness, state they want 'clean coal.' While I recognize that coal is a vital, current member of our energy mixture, I don't think it really belongs to our future whatsoever. Clean coal requires so much research its ridiculous. You know that carbon sequestration demo coal power plant that DOE was developing? The one that most of the world was excitedly waiting to see if it would solve the CO2 emission issue on a per plant basis? Well, it was cancelled. Why? The costs were spiraling out of control. It's necessary budget doubled without much work getting done to well over a billion dollars and nearing two. This one strikes me a near impossibility to reach and I cannot like any proposal for this. *shrugs*
However, I have to express my skepticism about anything proposed for after any administration's tenure. At best, Obama will have been out of office for nine years (a full administration cycle and a bit) by then and who knows whether or not his successor will continue said policy. This criticism is for McCain, too, btw, with his prognostications about 2030, 14 years, nearly two (!) administration cycles.
blast. Out of time. Meeting coming up and I have a fully booked day after that.
1 comment:
Obama's reaction stems from the fact that even now, nuclear power isn't competitive without the government. No utility could raise the needed capital without a government guarantee: the lead times are that long, and the regulatory hurdles that high.
That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be subsidizings reactors ... but considering the scope of, say, windpower, it isn't the best use of funds.
Obama has no fear of pandering (cough, eth, cough, an, hack, ole, hack) but this isn't really an example.
Post a Comment