Obama’s Energy Plan Gets High Marks
AlterNet is featuring an article from The Huffington Post that describes, at length, the key elements of Obama’s Energy Plan. The plan has been available for some time on the Obama website as a PDF, but this article does a great job of breaking it down and explaining the benefits of various elements of the plan in a way that makes complex issues very clear.
Its well worth the read
Obama Gets High Marks for New Energy Plan By Joseph Romm, Huffington Post. Posted August 5, 2008.
You assume that alternative energy use was adopted at a constant rate in California. In fact, a lot of the earlier wind parks in northern California are falling into disrepair now and seem to be only at 1/5th or less of production capacity. I don’t know the reason for this happening, but I can volunteer some ideas:
- the technology they were using may be obsolete, and they were built upon the first peak on alternative energy in the 70s, so their lifespan is just plainly over. This would mean there is a lot of already prepared area that can be used for new deployments with already pre-done cabling and ties into the power grid. It would also verify the lifetime of even the old wind power generators as around 20 years, handy for cost efficiency calculations.
- there’s no economic incentive to keep it running because the power companies don’t like the technology as much (read: they can produce or acquire power cheaper by other means). This is something that the Cap&Trade scheme is designed to prevent. By being able to work without generating CO2 and other pollutants, power companies using alternative energy sources can avoid limits set by the Cap part, and even can Trade in their surplus CO2 Cap to other companies that do not want or cannot switch to alternative sources. What this means is a subsidy of alternative sources (and by the way also nuclear power since it is also CO2 neutral) with revenue generated from the worst polluters. This can ideally be arranged to be neutral to the total tax pool (every dollar taxed more from polluters means one dollar more subsidizing alternative energy). The idea is to give a big incentive for the power companies to go alternative and put new investments into that area.
Nevertheless, even tho such wind power plants are falling into disrepair and are largely dysfunctional, the total input from alternative energy sources, as you said, is still 10%. Clearly there must be some new construction happening that fills up the gap those derelict areas leave behind. So alternative energy can’t be so much more inefficient, at least here in California where regulations are already biased very strongly against polluters. Hence, Cap&Trade probably would not change much in California at all. What it could do is bring more jobs because of new construction projects and after that maintenance since it shouldn’t be so attractive any more to import energy to California from other states that produce it from fossil sources. Those would be local jobs, since you hardly can produce the power in China. Looking at Europe again, the introduction of alternative power has not resulted in a loss of jobs in any of the countries where it has been done.
I don’t get your reference to endangered species at all. Those animals closing to extinction have nothing at all to do with Obama’s energy policy. Having a good energy policy is not for the animals, it’s for our own survival in the future. It is mankind’s pure self interest to become more sustainable, in every kind of way, of which energy production is just a small part. Otherwise there WILL be a point of no return where we can only go extinct. This is not a maybe, it is a 100% inescapable certainty, the laws of exponential growth guarantee it. Would you rather leave those difficult choices we face today to your kids or their grandchildren, when it may be already too late for them to do anything about it? We have to start one day; the earlier the better. Living in the past is a luxury mankind cannot sustain for much longer.
Ragnar -
Just want to clarify – I’m not against renewables. I’m all for them, but not at the expense of the economy and people. We have available natural resources on our own soil right now that we need to be tapping in to. There are people today that have to make a choice between food, medicine, bills or gas.
There needs to be a balanced use right now until the alternative energies can be mass produced economically and efficiently. If you looked at the California state statistics, they’ve been combining alternative energy sources with their natural resources for about 20 years now..and..their alternative energy sources account for only 10% of total energy output.
If they’ve only been able to replace 10% of carbon based energy sources after 20 years – how long do you think it would take the entire country to completely replace carbon based energy sources?
If you don’t get the point of the Cap & Trade scheme after the information I’ve provided – there’s nothing I can do to convince you its bad for the economy and our people.
Obama’s energy plan is a socialist wealth redistribution scheme that will force more businesses to leave the country or outsource everything overseas in order to avoid the extra taxes. It stifles economic growth and puts the environment ahead of people. I’m sorry, but I really don’t care if the freakin horned owl or some kind of bobcat is going to die in order for me to take care of my family to ensure there is a roof over their heads and food on the table.
The BoBos last blog post..no post because http://thebobofiles.com is banned/ignored from CommentLuv
‘Your notion that oil supply is limited bears no fruit either.’ Are you really implying that oil supply is unlimited? :) Anyway Wikipedia gives an estimate of 2020 for Peak Oil. We could argue about the year, but to me, that’s not ‘no where near’, it’s almost knocking at our doorstep.
Peak Oil is NOT the point where we can slowly start looking for alternatives, that is the point when market demand already severely outstrips the amount of oil that can be produced. Don’t talk about 100$ a barrel, talk about 500$ and more. If we start at that time, we will be too late. Look at what even the demand closing in on the supply is doing to our economy. European countries have seen that, but it seems there are just way too many willingly blind people that just refuse to see that there needs to be change, and it needs to be now.
On your statement about the area needed for wind power, that also is severely misleading. Wind power is most efficient if produced locally. If the land is to be had for cheap, then a large wind park still works, but the real strength of wind power is that it can be deployed on areas that are also used to other purposes. You cannot put a nuclear power plant in every neighborhood, but the wind turbines take up little space on the ground and once the tower is erected the area can be used as farm land or recreational area. A typical modern wind generator has a average lifetime of over 20 years and needs very little maintenance. That’s a lot better then a nuclear plant, which is much more expensive to build and much more expensive to maintain.
Also, as one of the linked articles states, wind power is very nicely suited to break the monopoly the utility companies have on energy delivery. It’s about time for the free market to enter this area, so there’s finally some real competition there.
Oh, about the russian link you also showed. That news relates to a exploratory drilling finding a deposit. Does the article mention how long the company already has been looking? No. And it tells you that the _test well_ is going to be moved to a different site and that exploratory drilling there will commence two months later. Two months to set up one test rig. Not every test drill will be successful, that this article made news tells me that it’s a small enough chance to be newsworthy. Can you now after rereading the article carefully, figure out why it takes years to actually make an oil field produce well? Nowhere does the article tell when real production is planned to commence.
You must have found my original post..it’s there now! Glad I don’t have to recreate everything again!
Ragnar – Check my lengthy post right below your initial response to me.
Regarding your comment on Texas and windpower…I have that link. It’s still not efficient.
It will take a very long time to make those alternative energy sources mainstream, efficient, and affordable.
Your notion that oil supply is limited bears no fruit either. We are no where near peak oil..you make it sound like we’re on the downside of our oil supply which is entirely false.
Sure – I agree we should switch to alternative energies – but – not for environmental sake or anything like that..don’t really care…I’m more concerned about our national security and the fact we continue to send $700 billion to our enemies every year.
Cap and Trade is a tax scheme no matter how you lay it out. Check the links above. No valued economist in their right mind would support such a scheme. It would destroy our free-market capitalist system. The only one’s who support it are politicians who want to grow the size of government (including McCain).
I didn’t comment on the veracity of global warming. But you denoted it as a tax scheme, which it is obviously not. No scientist doubts global warming does exist. The measurements prove it beyond any reasonable doubt. The question whether it’s man that is mainly responsible for it is what you are arguing about, but that isn’t related to taxes either, unless you subscribe to ridiculous conspiracy theories like the worldwide governments colluding on the ‘faux global warming’ just so they can raise taxes (hint: they can do that anyway).
And I call on your framing of the issue when you propose global warming is the only reason to go alternative energy:
- Oil is running out and we need it for more important things then wasting it to just produce energy.
- Uranium is hard (read expensive) to produce in quantities or has to be imported (ever imagine what happens when some more countries, like china and india follow the example of the US and build more nuclear power plants?). Breeder reactors do not allow to recycle uranium over and over again either, just to extend the lifetime of the fuel pellet/rod. And nuclear energy has the well known risks associated with them, and is only commercially sustainable because of subsidies anyway.
- Coal when burned is not just a source of CO2 like oil but also of fine dust particles which cause respiratory problems. Those can be filtered, but that causes a cost increase which lessens the profits for the power companies. Mining it also ruins the landscape for a wide area. And it’s also a limited resource, why use it up when there are alternatives that are free and unlimited?
None of these makes sense for a long term energy policy. Renewable energy sources are the way to go if we want to continue to grow economy-wise. Of course those lend themselves to smaller-scale production, so the power companies don’t like them as much, after all where would all their deal leverage be if every county could produce its own energy and would only have to buy when demand outstrips production? In Europe wind power (just as an example) is well developed and some governments there are already cutting subsidies because the technology is mature and doesn’t need them any more to be competitive. Denmark already produces 20% of its energy through wind. Texas is investing heavily in wind power even here. New Zealand has been using water power in their biggest power plant for decades and is very happy with it. Sorry, doesn’t sound like a technology in its infancy to me.
Your links about gas damaging engines show, if you had actually read them, that it’s not the alcohol that’s the problem, it’s the water the alcohol will draw. Nothing to do at all with ‘corn oil’. A good engine will be able to deal with a few water molecules. Cheap two cylinder engines may be too cheaply built for it. The other anecdotal quote of ‘ethanol loosening dirt from the fuel station tanks’ and gunking up the engine that way sounds to me quite like scaremongery … after all, gasoline is very aggressive on its own, and can corrode those tanks and wash the corrosion out just like ethanol is assumed to do.
K..I’ll do it tomorrow..getting tired here. Just will preface it for now with this – mostly for ragnar’s benefit I guess since he/she(?) pretty much ripped my post.
While you may have not liked the way I presented it (no sources) the fact is, everything I stated is supported in fact. All the links I will provide you come from reputable news sources (not blogs), state websites, federal web sites, and science website resources.
Here’s two to start with – this is with regards to ragnar’s supposition that man-made global warming is a fact:
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html
31,000+ scientists including over 9,000 Ph.D’s have signed a petition debunking man-made global warming and any and all statements made by Gore and his movie. This includes individuals from the physical sciences, astrophysics, meteorology, geology, etc. Including the founder of the weather channel. I would believe 31,000 experts in their fields over 2,700 individuals who signed on the U.N. report..most of whom were politicians and statesmen. Don’t buy in to the global warming crap. There were 4200 links on google regarding these scientists..so..I figured one would be enough.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25936782/
http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_engine_precautions.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bothwell1.html
Three different reputable sources regarding the damage that E10 ethanol causes in engines including gunking them up. Pay close attention to #6 and #9 in the second link there.
Sure, just post the URLs
The things we have to put up with just to be bloggers, eh? You know, and I had a really excellent post completely sourced and everything for u guys…now, I’m not even sure if I want to go through the effort again..not cuz of ur blog..but just cuz it takes a while to pull out all the URL’s again.
If anything..maybe I’ll just post up all the URL’s without the commentary that went with them.
Bob, same thing happened to me on your blog on Tuesday night. I had written a lengthy comment and went to the raw HTML mode in your comment editor to fine tune some stuff and froze Firefox. I hate when that happens.
oh..you’ve got to be kidding me!!!! I just spent 1.5 hours pulling all the resources together giving you irrefutable proof regarding my statements…and when I submitted it…it didn’t save!!! Arrgghhh.
It’s too late now…I’ll come back later and start all over. Too upset now!
Okay..guess I’ll just have to prove my point with facts since I’m obviously and idiot and don’t know what I’m talking about and I’m just making it all up! :^)
Ethanol damaging engines: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25936782/
Oil found in July, being extracted in September: http://www.mnweekly.ru/business/20080710/55337246.html
With regards to the above – the reason it takes so long for us in the US to extract is because of all the bureaucracy – not because it REALLY takes that long! We already know where all the oil is..We’re just not allowed to drill for it.
Inefficiency of alternative energies – I’m using California as an example since they are at the cutting edge of this technology in the U.S.: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
Take a look at the last column for the “renewables” compared to coal, nuclear, oil, and natural gas. Then, click on the tab regarding renewable energy. You’ll see they’ve been at this for decades..and that’s the best they can do?
Global Warming Hoax – hmmm..lets see, 31,000 scientists, meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, etc versus 2,700 mostly non-scientists who signed the U.N. report..sorry..but, my bet is on the 31,000 scientists (including the founder of the weather channel):
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_global_warming/2008/05/19/97307.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040927082256.htm
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
Those are all fairly recent articles from reliable scientific and news sources (not blogs)debunking all the global warming myth and hype.
Cap and Trade Tax Scheme: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=96dc23c8-33e2-45c4-bf6a-14aba852d764
http://nov55.com/captr.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/caruba051407.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm
again..all from reputable news and science sources.
“Even your analogy to computer development is failing miserably with development cycles of 6 months to 3 years for new hardware nowadays.”
You missed the point – NEW technology takes decades to become mainstream. Only once they have been proven to be efficient and can be mass produced at affordable rates, then can it become mainstream. The point being made with computers is that it took well over 40 years to become mainstream and affordable. Alternative energy is still in its infancy. While it may be available – it is neither free, efficient, nor affordable to be able to harness it and mass produce enough energy to sustain 300,000,000 people in this country.
Wind Power Plants? http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/wind.html
This is from the DOE’s kid’s website that explains it in very easy to understand language. You’re wrong on that one too. The largest windfarm/power plant in the country needs 421 windmills to produce electricity for 200,000 homes. Do you know how large that piece of land needs to be to contain 421 windmills and it only services 200,000 homes? It takes up 47,000 acres of land (http://www.virtualbirdseye.com/2008/07/01/worlds-largest-wind-farm-horse-hollow-wind-energy-center-aerial-view/) and it cost $12 Million to build and only produces 735.5Mw, that is $16,350 per MwH. A 2 Gigawatt Nuke plant costs about $2 Billion to build (or $1,000 per GwH) and only uses up about 10 acres of land: http://www.depletedcranium.com/?p=455
So..tell me again how wind and solar power plants are better then nuke plants and scales better!
While you may not have liked the way I presented it initially, the fact of the matter is that nothing I stated was wrong. I just didn’t think I would have to create a really long post sources absolutely everything to get you to see the truth!
So much wrong with BoBo’s comment, I don’t even know where to start. Cap and trade and global climate change a tax scheme? I didn’t know the exhaust of power plants are taxed in any way, same for the temperature. But I’m sure the people in Alaska in your world like that, after all they pay less taxes for less temperature, right? :P
Then, corn may not be the most efficient form of providing ethanol for cars and using it as a fuel additive for cars may reduce mileage, but linking that to engines being damaged because of ‘corn oil’? You seem to want it both ways, one sentence shows you know the additive is ethanol (which is produced from the corn plant by a chemical process) the next you’re talking about a kitchen product that has no similarity to ethanol in any way. Sure, if you pour corn oil into your engine it might congeal on you, but no one is asking for that, the same way that no one is asking you to pour crude oil (also a gooey liquid quite unlike gasoline) into the tank.
Next paragraph you are talking about ‘making alternative energy sources efficient, sustainable and cheap within 10 years’. Beg your pardon, but alternative energy sources are all that already, provided you use them well. We might not be there yet actually doing that, but sunlight, geothermal and wind are already here, 100% sustainable, for free. Also, building a sunlight or wind power plant is much simpler then building a nuclear one, and scales much better to local demands.
And since you’re so keen on taxes, why does the power industry get heavy subsidies by the taxpayer? Why don’t you complain about those, instead of makeup taxes on ‘global warming’?
Oil on the other hand has to be dug up, transported and refined. All that requires prospecting, planning most likely to yield drill sites, exploratory drilling, and last but not least building wells, pipelines and refineries (after all the gas price is also high because the US lacks sufficient refining capacity). 10 years? Quite optimistic aren’t we :P
Even your analogy to computer development is failing miserably with development cycles of 6 months to 3 years for new hardware nowadays.
Bob, so many of those objections were applied to FDR’s “New Deal” programs. They would be expensive and could not accomplish anything in just a few years but those objections were wrong too. Sure it was really WW2 that ended the Great Depression but the New Deal programs, which were very similar in scope and aim to Obama’s plans, created jobs and a skilled workforce that did not exist before. It resulted in a military force and then a workforce that drove the US economy to heights unseen in the world before that point.
These programs will require labor, labor requires workers, workers pay taxes and cost the social financial net less money. Its a Win Win Win situation and is the ONLY plan I’ve heard of that looks like it has a chance to address the massive changes in the US labor market that stem from our hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs.
As I’m sure you read since you read his plan, corn is NOT desirable as a long term biofuel source. It uses way too much energy to raise an produce and only the Agricultural Services/Products industry (largely Republican donors) who think this is a good idea.
So many of the things you seem to think will “crush” the economy may well have a temporary negative effect but only because we have dealt with 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton ignoring long term energy security and climate effects of excessive energy consumption. As the AlterNet article pointed out, its hard to wean ourselves off imported oil when so many utility companies depend on INCREASED energy consumption to stay afloat and turn a profit.
All of the “radical” changes in the Obama Energy policy would have seemed much less radical and much less necessary had we listened to Jimmy Carter’s warnings about our dependence on foreign sources of energy 30 years ago.
As far as the 10+ years it will take for Off Shore drilling to result in real benefits, those estimates are based on the Bush appointees at the Dept. of Energy.
And that was before much was known about the shortage in drilling rigs and the fairly long delay in fulfillment of orders already placed with manufacturers.
Hi JD,
I’ve read through this plan before – and – it’s still not good for America. Where do you think all this money is going to come from for these plans? He has to raise taxes! Just look at all those “green” related requirements – cap and trade, global climate change, CO2 swapping, etc. These are all tax schemes. Also – the use it or lose it plan – makes no sense. Those leases have already been explored and found to be empty and useless. The oil companies will gladly let the government take them back. These are huge expenses that the oil companies are required to pay on that are non-productive – which by the way – is being passed on to consumers.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – using our food supply to create fuel is idiotic. Sure – corn might be sustainable – but – since we use corn for almost every freakin edible food product in this country – it will continue to drive food prices up – it’s already starting. In addition, auto repair organizations are already coming out and saying that ethanol is damaging engines all around this country. Think about it – corn oil – when heated over and over becomes a syrup. It’s gunking up engines everywhere and is costing people up to $2000 to replace and repair their engines. That’s not economical or efficient.
He thinks alternative energy sources and supplies can be made efficient, sustainable, and cheap within 10 years? That’s crazy – look how long it took for computers to become mainstream and that is cutting edge technology. At this time, there are no efficient alternative technologies and while they keep saying it could take 10 years to get oil (which we all know is a lie) why put billions of tax dollars in to something that will yield us nothing when in 10 years (according to the left) we could be energy independent using fossil fuels? Seriously, if Russia can find oil in June and begin extracting by September – don’t you think we, one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, could also do it?
He does have one thing right – the reason it takes so long to extract our natural resources is because of all the insane regulations and processes the energy producers have to go through. Why is it he thinks he can get those restrictions eased when he’s in office, yet the Dems have been obstructing the Republicans since 1995 in trying to ease these restrictions?
Yes – he has detailed a plan more than just passing out tire gauges..but..it would crush our economy in short time.
The BoBos last blog post..What does Obama mean by Economic and Social Justice? (Part 1)