3. Energy
Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
|
OBAMA: America’s challenges in providing secure, affordable energy while addressing climate change mean that we must make much more efficient use of energy and begin to rely on new energy sources that eliminate or greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My programs focus both on a greatly expanded program of federally funded energy research and development and on policies designed to speed the adoption of innovative energy technologies and stimulate private innovation. First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment by $150 billion over ten years. This research will cover: • Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals; • Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing; • New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption; • Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids; • Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants; and • A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks. I will also work closely with utilities to introduce a digital smart grid that can optimize the overall efficiency of the nation’s electric utility system, by managing demand and making effective use of renewable energy and energy storage. Second, it is essential that we create a strong, predictable market for energy innovations with concrete goals that speed introduction of innovative products and provide a strong incentive for private R&D investment in energy technologies. These concrete goals include: • Increasing new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade, and taking other steps that will reduce the energy intensity of our economy 50 percent by 2030; • Increasing fuel economy standards 4 percent per year and providing loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers to build new fuel- efficient cars domestically; • Extending the Production Tax Credit for five years and creating a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard that will require that 10 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; and • Ensuring that regulations and incentives in all federal agencies support the national energy and environmental goals in ways that encourage innovation and ingenuity. I will also encourage communities around the nation to design and build sustainable communities that cut energy use with walkable community designs and expanded investment in mass transit. |
MCCAIN: Over time, I believe that we must reform our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources that meet the multiple shared objective of promoting environmental, economic and national security. One of the prevailing issues of our time and the next presidency will be how to deal with the issues of energy security and sustainability. It is important that we shift to sustainable, clean burning energy sources or advance to technologies that make our more traditional resources cleaner burning. As President, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy. The U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. Currently, nuclear power provides 20 percent of our overall energy portfolio. Other countries such as China, India and Russia are looking to increase the role of nuclear power in their energy portfolio and the U.S. should not just look to maintain, but increase its own use. In the progress of other alternative energy sources — such as wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and hydroelectric –government must be an ally but not an arbiter. In less than a generation, wind power alone could account for a fifth or more of all our electricity. And just in recent memory, solar energy has gone from a novelty to a fast-growing industry. I’ve voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent. And when I’m signing laws, instead of casting one of a hundred votes, I intend to see that objective better served. We will reform this effort so that it is fair, rational, and permanent, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy. I will also commit the federal government to a prosperous clean technology agenda and to becoming the world leader in green technologies. Americans have always been the world’s leaders in innovation, and it’s time for our economy to adapt and take an active role in the new green international economy. These investments by government into basic research along with aggressive and realistic targets for greenhouse gas emissions will be critical in spurring revolutionary innovations in energy that will, over the long term, reduce energy costs and increase economic growth. |
|
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
The only concrete proposal from McCain appears to be more investment in nuclear power, and it’s a pretty disingenuous paragraph, claiming nuclear power is zero-emission–not even a mention of the problem of waste disposal. I’m actually shocked that whoever answered the question for McCain didn’t at least make the effort to appear intent on remedial policies. What we have instead is:
1. 45 new reactors by 2030, no mention of waste
2. Government should stay out of renewables; private industry will make them work [hopefully]
3. Yes, I voted against renewable energy tax credits, but only because they didn’t go far enough
4. Some vague mention of funding for basic research, no details
The answer appears to be purely afterthought. What a terrifying hint at what the McCain administration would [not] focus on.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Obama = long-term solutions to mitigate the actual problem
McCain = short-term non-solution sound bites (”Drill, baby, drill!) to get himself elected
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 am
Obama : Obama is offering a comprehensive set of solutions for achieving clean energy independence. His response indicates that he understands that there is no single solution, and that he understands how the government’s role would be most effective.
His strongest point, is his support of increasing building efficiency. This shows that not only is he aware of the problems America faces, he has an in-depth understanding of the many innovative solutions that have the ability to lead us into the 21st century.
McCain : While nuclear power is a viable energy source, his support for it is a Catch-22. McCain is likely aware of the many reasons why there haven’t been new nuclear facilities for 30 years, and thus it is a safe bet for him to offer it as a solution. It looks good on paper, but doesn’t provide any real solution. In regards to renewable energy, government should provide a leading role in using tax incentives to promote clean renewable energy sources.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Senator Obama offered a reasonable policy statement. Senator McCain offered sentiment. The point goes to Senator Obama.
However, regardless of who gets elected, please add - when spending federal dollars to help citizens rebuild after natural disasters like Hurricane Ike, we will use the opportunity to rebuild in a greener, more energy efficient manner. It might cost more in the short term, but it would be to everyone’s benefit.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
More nuclear reactors without standards/plan for waste is unwise. Drill Alaska seems to be McCain’s solution using Sarah Palin as his “front” and letting her throw around the rhetoric. Hopefully, Obama’s ideas offer long term solutions and I like the idea of encouraging communities and individuals to be invloved.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
So far Obama wants Government (ie taxpayers) to be the main benefactor of the first 4 questions. With the economy in the shape that it is in, which both parties are equally evil and complicite, how much more can the taxpayers put on thier backs? McCain is also asking the taxpayers to do too much, but at least we have evidence of his record that maybe cutting the bloated government might pay for some of these initiatives. Take a look at the pork each have sponsored over the past.
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Senate_-_alpha.pdf?docID=3023
These are complex issues and the answers aren’t as simple as the two senators would have us believe.
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Surprised at the voting responses. Here, I think Obama is just tossing out big numbers to sound impressive. He does it several times in his responses, promising things like doubling funding for this or that, dropping gigantic sums on other things. None of that is his decision to make and it’s easy to claim, then not follow though. Certainly he is playing coy about the reality of getting those bills through congress, and I think McCain here is the one with an actual first step. We need nuclear power, McCain has long supported that.
For my money, Obama is just tossing out numbers to sound like he’s a supporter, but lacks a real plan that we can count on becoming reality. McCain may not be impressive either, but at least he seems more to be looking into the solutions rather than just saying he’ll fund every program that comes down the pike.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Obama’s response indicates a good balance between the public and private sectors, which should be most effective in providing satisfactory results. McCain reflects the usual conservative approach which leaves the solution mostly to the private sector without the enhancement possible by a contributing public effort.
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
McCain said Sarah Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.” We need a President with a real energy policy that has nothing to do with enriching oil companies. That will not be John McCain.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Nuclear power is the only viable long-term solution … the waste problem is more of a beurocratic one, as Yucca mountain is a sound choice as shown by repeated research, but it has been blocked in legislation.
That’s not to say Obama’s answers aren’t good, but they have a painful under-emphasis on nuclear power. Other renewables are great and all, but just too unreliable. McCain’s response is better in that regard, though lacking in shorter-term options as well.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Drilling (yes, let’s drill Alaska more and pump it dry and pollute and destroy the ecology further, in the process) or pollute with lots and lots of reactors and cross our fingers we can bury the waste somewhere people will forget about it until it comes back to bite our granchildren on the behind — that’s JW’s “plan”.
Supporting R&D in alternative sources, funding the best prototypes, changing the way communities as well as individuals use energy and changing the way we live to best utilize energy and remain productive and progressive is what Sen. Obama is offering — it’s a long term commitment and a great start could be made over 8 years’ time.
Again, Sen. Obama gets my vote on this one.
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Nuclear power is a good temporary solution. But the power grid needs to be updated. Power demands today are as much regional and national as they are local. You can’t just blanket the country with nuclear reactors, it takes infrastructure. Obama has already mentioned he wants nuclear. But he wants renewables for the fuel of our cars. Both require substantial infrastructure upgrades.
McCain wants to keep drilling. Good for people who want to be oil drillers or clean coal employees for the next 20 years, but what do we do with those employees once they are laid off when the renewables kick in?
Obama has my vote here.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Both candidates talk about a commitment to new energy sources. Both talk about nuclear power.
Beyond that, Obama goes to great length with a list of specific proposals. McCain has none. Obama will fund research into alternative energy sources and distribution. McCain will leave it to chance (aka, the free market).
And what McCain fails to say here is that he is committed to “drill, baby, drill.” That will not move us away from our dependence on fossil fuels. When the small amount of domestic oil runs out, we will be right back to begging for oil from the rest of the world.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:26 pm
While McCain brings up a few important points (such as patchy tax structures for interstate energy concerns) he once again does not seem to have the full picture in mind. As others have said, putting nuclear front-and-center is completely remiss without discussing the two huge drawbacks (waste and the dearth of nuclear engineers during the last 3 decades of atrophy). Surprisingly, McCain doesn’t mention the lack of incentive for generation and transmission companies to grow capacity to meet demand.
Obama lacks on details, but I’m OK with that since he covers so much territory, and most of the important topics are at least one bullet.
Nevertheless, both candidates need to talk with power engineers, not just executives and researchers. Generating wind power in the Badlands is useless without transmission over congested lines to the large cities that need power.
Obama has my vote here.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I like Obama’s answer because he actually addresses the need for storage and transmission. The new clean technologies will need storage and transmission to be worked out to be effective.
McCain doesn’t seem to get it. He wants to build 45 nuclear reactors. This isnt’ exactly what the rest of us have in mind when we consider clean energy. There is a lot of risk associated with nuclear including where to store the toxic waste, which he doesn’t address. It is nice of McCain to admit he has voted against even short term measures to move us to a green future, but it isn’t enough, we really need someone who understands the challenges we face in this area. McCain clearly doesn’t.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Obama has the clearly superior answer here. He provides specific information, shows awareness of the issue, and gives a structured response. McCain provides standard vague Republican rhetoric and catch phrases. For example, the statement that government should be a “partner” and not an “arbiter” is code for hand over tax dollars to huge corporations and provide no oversight for what they do with that money. McCain’s answer proves that he is, indeed, “more of the same.”
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
45 new reactors??? McCain doesn’t say anything about disposing of the nuclear waste from all these nuclear plants. That is a disaster waiting to happen.
I like Obama’s knowledge of exactly how to accomplish his goals–carbon sequestration, for example. McCain’s ideas are just so much political jargon.He is not up on recent scientific advances.
September 22nd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
It is not hard to discern which candidate understands the issues. This is not a subject where throwing out a number that doesn’t mean anything (or provide fruit in the short term) makes sense. Calling for 45 nuclear facilities in twenty years argues a lack of understanding in what’s required and what we, in this country, know on the topic. At the moment, the US is sadly behind the rest of the world on this topic as we haven’t built a new facility in decades. Nor am I impressed with the “I haven’t supported it but I’m for it” mantra. Walk the walk, man. He’s tagged Palin - can we believe oil isn’t central in his plans?
In this answer, I saw the steps I was hoping to see in Obama’s last answer.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:05 am
This is one issue that I believe that Obama is absouloutely right on. He’s offered concrete plans, and spelled them out.
McCain’s plan to just increase nuclear reactors is frightening. They may have no carbon emissions, but what about waste? What about radioactive emissions? If those questions can be addressed satisfactorally then perhaps nuclear power is feasible, but until they are nuclear power is dangerous. I’m also unimpressed with his “let the private market” deal with alternative energy. There’s no guarantee that it would happen then, just look at solar, which has been around for decades, but only has a small (but growing) consumer base. The highway system would not have been built without FDR’s New Deal, it’s ulikely that we can updated our entire energy infrastructure without a “Green” deal, and that looks like what Obama is proposing.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
This is the first answer that McCain has better than Obama. The reason there have been no reactors for 30 years has little to do with science and more to due with public paranoia. Generation III+ and IV reactors are much more advanced than the old reactors that are still active. Many are passively safe and produce much less waste. People always bitch about nuclear waste, but seem to forget the chemicals involved for photovoltaics and batteries needed by renewable sources.
Some of the generation IV reactors can even provide an efficient means of producing not only power, but also hydrogen that can be used to provide a infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles. These provide a great means to improve energy production now and create a future for emissions free transportation in the future.
We need something to break our oil habit long before renewables become efficient enough for wide spread use and nuclear is the logical intermediate step. Obama is still getting my vote, but McCain definitely answered this question better.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 am
As someone who lives in Las Vegas, NV, 101 miles by car from where McCain wants to store all the waste from those 45 new nuclear reactors in Yucca Mountain, McCain’s plan does not help him make his case at all. He seems to think that Nuclear energy and drilling for oil will magically solve all of our energy problems.
Obama also talks about Nuclear energy but mentions things like safety and dealing with the waste, rather than just storing it all somewhere.
Obama seems to understand that we need to look at energy from many different direction instead of just one or two.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
Why can’t we update our regional transportation network? All the money we dump into roads as a subsidy for the vehicle and oil industries!!! Let us build world class electric train network regionally, then link nationally. Why should it cost less to fly to Minneapolis from NYC than take the train. Amtrak blows. McCain shows his true colors here, he didn’t even try to cover. Obama’s nuanced response however will play less well in debates. Good luck to us!
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Green Deal ! Did I read someone say we need a Green Deal. YES.
Obama presents an answer I can accept.
The very audacity of our president to say we are addicted to oil. What else is possible when tax incentives for
green alternatives industry has been thwarted in Congress; McCain admits he has not voted for “the patch work” temporary tax incentives for green energy because it was too small to start?
A silly reason why he has not voted for these bills offered in each session for the last eight years. Truly, he has shown NO SUPPORT; I do not believe he can change his position on letting the oil interests continue to milk this declining resource and endangering our economic futures until the last drop. John, Please don’t drill.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Since most of the comments seem to reflect past statements and performance, rather than the actual responses, I’m not motivated to continue submitting my own. However, although I like Obama’s approach in general much better than McCain’s, I do think Obama is going to have to turn more positively toward nuclear energy if he does win the election.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:52 pm
McCain is my senator and he has consistently voted against incentives for alternate energy incentives. The last vote, about six weeks ago, MaCain was absent and the junior senator from AZ, Jon Kyl, voted against bringing a bill to the floor. This in Arizona which should be the capital of solar in the US. I do not believe McCain.
Obama was also absent from the vote.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Interesting how McCain does not address his drilling policy. We consume half of the world’s oil and only have 3% of the reserves. Destroying what little pristine environment for a couple of years, at best, more US oil is clearly stupid. Not ill advised… just stupid.
September 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
McCain’s energy policy relies on two imaginary technology skyhooks - large-scale carbon sequestration and nuclear power - to make everything OK. Because any significant increase in nuclear power requires fuel reprocessing, the nuclear option is out of reach economically, and extraordinarily dangerous from a nuclear proliferation and nuclear waste point of view. It’s a non-starter for at least another generation. Similarly, there is no evidence that large scale carbon sequestration is a viable option, at any price. Not to put to fine a point on it, McCain’s energy plan is a fantasy.
Obama is still naive. But he’s on the right track.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I worry less about the numbers in Obama’s reply than the concepts underlying them, which by and large get at the essences of some of the challenges. As others have noted, McCain’s handlers don’t get it, and the emphasis in nuclear power not only doesn’t address the disposal or security issues but also the finite lifetimes of nuclear power plants because of radiation contamination. Both, though, need to address the way in which lifestyles have to change, with less emphasis on one vehicle per person, more emphasis on intermediate and long-distance transportation where practicable. Obama touches on it at the very end, almost as an afterthought.
September 25th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Obama’s proposed investments may help, but the industries are pretty mature. Better just to get the carbon-based fuels to pay for their own creation of carbon dioxide and let the markets deal with this one.
McCain’s advocacy of nuclear energy is perhaps good science. But then why did he advocate drilling and select Palin as his running mate? Will the real McCain please stand up?
September 26th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Obama’s response is very detailed, thought-through and in-depth, whereas McCain’s response appears to be a bunch of statements that sound like a response, but at a closer look is not.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Obama’s commitment to clean energy development is sound enough ($150 B over ten years), but with the $700 B bank bailout loomoing, I cannot imagine when he will be able to implement it. Obama absolutely has to lose his fixation with clean coal and corn ethanol. But his commitment to a digital smart grid, mass transit, and green energy conservation is very good and may be the best short term solution until the more expensive R & D work on clean energy is effective.
McCain’s only answer is “letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.” Exactly why does he think we are so mired in middle eastern oil politics? The man needs to retire to the old conservative’s rest home.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Sen. Obama is the only one who mentions energy efficiency beyond the automobile industry, thus his high rating. Otherwise, both are pandering to the notion of energy independance which is not, and probably never will be feasible.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Obama wins this one. McCain’s answer seems more like a wish-list than a specific policy statement.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am
I don’t know who will be right in the long run but whoever is elected, I expect them carry out what they promise. I personally think Obama is all talk, but if he is elected, I expect to see results.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I did not like this statement by McCain “I’ve voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary…” Well, isn’t that at least a START?!?! Start with some thing temporary, see how it works, and then make it forever!
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:15 pm
McCain has repeatedly promoted an expansion of nuclear power in conjunction with the establishment of an extensive waste recycling program. Environmentally and economically, this is the most intelligent plan forwarded by a candidate since Jimmy Carter ended the recycling initiative and created the waste issue in the 70’s. Feel free to educate yourselves on the facts of both nuclear fuel cycles and the actual policy proposals of the candidates before spouting off. Even the founder of Greenpeace has come strong to the mike in support on nuclear expansion.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Quote:
35Hopkins PhD:
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I did not like this statement by McCain “I’ve voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary…” Well, isn’t that at least a START?!?! Start with some thing temporary, see how it works, and then make it forever!
Reply:
McCain is touching on a subject that is strongly regarded in the energy community as a policy failure. Short term extensions of the RPTC (which has not always been extended in a timely fashion) have prevented the Solar and Wind industries from making the needed step change to improve manufacturing infrastructure in the US. A lower credit, given for a longer period would solve that problem and promote true energy independence. Where do you think the vast majority of Wind Turbines are manufactured?
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Neither Candidate presents a viable roadmap to our energy future: we need a short-term plan to get us by while we implement a long-term plan. While I’m not fond of nuclear power, it is a necessary evil: 1) it is quicker and more cost effective interim source of power than other sources, and 2) if/when wind and solar are ever up and running, we will need a reliable source to supplement them on days when there is little wind and/or sun. Trying to have enough excess wind/solar capacity in one part of the country to supplement another part of the country during a shortage would not be economically feasible (and would also generate environmental protests).
Farming hurts the environment, so farming more to create bio-fuels/ethanol, etc. is not environmentally feasible (not to mention what it has done to food prices around the world). Hydroelectric damages the environment. Geothermal has potential risks.
We MUST be careful about which roads we take for our future energy needs.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Gene S,
Please provide the data supporting the impact of bio-fuel production on global food prices. All data that I have seen reflects that the vast majority of food price increases have been due to the rising cost of crude. I don’t support the production of ethanol from anything other than cellulosic sources, but I would like to nip your bit of misinformation in the bud.
October 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
McCain’s X-prize for plug-in hybrids, 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, and clean coal technologies are crucial as a short term solution to our impending energy crisis. Obama’s support for the digital smart grid, increasing new building efficiency by 50 percent, extending the Production Tax Credit, and requiring 10 percent of American electricity come from renewable sources by 2012 will put this country on a real road to permanent energy independence.
So Paris Hilton’s plan takes it:
October 4th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Cite:
“”"
And what McCain fails to say here is that he is committed to “drill, baby, drill.” That will not move us away from our dependence on fossil fuels. When the small amount of domestic oil runs out, we will be right back to begging for oil from the rest of the world.
“”"
Please can we think just a little bit before posting. We can’t switch off oil this instant. By building nuclear reactors McCain is turning down the oil tap in 5-10 years time. Local oil is a stop-gap. For ever dollar spent on overseas oil a proportion goes into feeding terrorism. That and stability are reasons for preferring local supplies.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Cite:
“”"
Senator Obama offered a reasonable policy statement. Senator McCain offered sentiment.
“”"
Political hogwash. I refer you to the section on scientific integrity.
October 4th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Obama’s answer was better, but both were awful. Both were focused on the electric power industry and neither even hinted at peak oil. The central energy issue is OIL not electricity. Drilling more will help only a little and only briefly. We need to redesign our entire city layouts (zoning) and transportation infrastructure (i.e. mass transit). Neither of them addressed this.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Now HERE Obama addresses some of the technology/efficiency issues he ignored in the last question. His focus on efficiency is encouraging. The way both candidates seem to have embraced “clean” coal and nuclear is a bit troubling - coal is still a rather dirty fossil fuel, and I doubt nuclear will ever be truly safe - but understandable, given the current issues with many other energy alternatives (food-supply problems and deforestation for biofuels, and the efficiency of solar power, for instance). I just hope that the next administration really does devote themselves to solving these issues so that these cleaner energy sources become true alternatives.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Neither mentioned drilling at all, even as a temporary step - I guess that topic is good enough for the general population but not for the scientific community? I do like how Obama at least mentioned making what we have more efficient, as reducing wasteful use is even better than just increasing our energy output capabilities.
October 9th, 2008 at 4:58 am
• Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals;
Burn 1 pound of Carbon - you still get 3.6 pounds of CO2 — alternative fuels don’t change the basics.
• Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings – both new and existing;
The government is going to design or invent this? This already exists - but most people would rather pay a high heating or cooling bill - instead of applying what is known about energy conservation. How many people do you know who have had a blower door, energy study done on their home and applied the results?
• New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption;
Like the car companies aren’t already scrambling to produce these.
• Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids;
Once again, the electric utilities are just waiting on the government to invent this? Or maybe the government is going to fund the deployment of this magic technology - with whose money - and why aren’t the electric companies already deploying it?
This is a list of great ideas without any execution.
October 9th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Nuclear waste is not a problem, just a political excuse. Drill baby drill!
October 10th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
McCain fails to address one of the basic issues on energy and that is how we move people. Increasing automobile efficiency standards as well as more investment in electric or hybrid cars is important. Investments in mass transit and a decreasing reliance on gas powered transportation is a long term solution.
October 14th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Reading between the lines is always a handy, insightful, ability. Substantive, meaningful, solutions that are committed to action would make a difference to our nations energy conundrum. In spite of what people think this topic will not cure itself in our nation alone. We must, with responsible leadership, lead this world into the future without embittering the nations of the world. That means we must be insightful and caring for the culture of other peoples and their needs. That doesn’t mean that we have to give away the barn. But it does mean that our leadership must be able to justify within their decisions for the future what is best for us and also the world at large.
October 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
McCain… “I’ve voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary”.
Says it all really!
It’s better to support and encourage what is feasible today, appreciating that in new technologies most new develoipments are merely temporary
October 16th, 2008 at 1:34 am
I see the major energy issue to be how to reduce our imports of petroleum from countries other than those in NAFTA. I don’t see any indication that either candidate has a clear idea of how to do this. I don’t see how wind and solar will solve this issue for at least 20 years (certainly 10). I rate McCain somewhat higher because Obama seems to be wedded to the Green agenda. I see no mention of synthetic fuels which are probably the only immediate solution. I realize that they don’t sound as green as “biofuels” but they burn better.
October 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Neither of them commented on fusion energy, which has to be the long-term hope for electrical power in the World. The USA has defaulted on its very modest pledge ($160 million) to ITER, the international project to build a demonstration fusion reactor. The money saved will support only a few minutes of our war in Iraq! What must the World think of us?!
October 17th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Perhaps it is wise to consider some hard figures to begin with. During the last presidential debate, Obama has promised to eliminate dependence on foreign oil in 10 years (if I remember right). In 2005, the US was importing a little more than 13 million of barrel of oil a day. I do not have access to more recent statistics, but I doubt that the figure has dropped. That is equivalent to 1 terawatts (1 followed by 12 zeros). Let’s say that by a combination of technologies, plus going after the domestic oil contained in the million of acres leased to oil companies we drop that requirement by 50%. We still need to cover 500 Gigawatts. That is equivalent to
1) 125 Nuclear plants rated at 4GigaWatts. Just as a comparison, the Palo Verde plant in AZ, the largest in the US is rated at 3.2 GigaWatts
2) 340,000 300-foot diameter 1.5 MegaWatts wind turbines. This figure though is low, because it assumes steady wind. In practice, a certain fraction will be near or at zero output (yes, wind is finicky and very hard to predict), so that figure will have to grow, possibly to over a million. And, of course, do not forget that you cannot build them near Ted Kennedy’s home on the Cape!
3) 3.6 million acres of solar cells or about 5400 square miles. This figure is based on a yield of 50W/sqf, which is 5 times the actual yield of present day cells and neglects the ancillary structured needed to run the show. Also, I am assuming that peak production occurs for 8 hours a day, INDEPENDENT on the season. For reference, the surface of Delaware is 2,500 square miles.
Other issues: Nuclear plants can be distributed on the territory based on need. The other options have to be distributed based on the availability of the resource. Hence, they require a beefed up distribution grid, with advance software management, to avoid NY style power failures.
Safety: Nobody likes to be vaporized in a nuclear explosion, or dying a slow and horrible death by radiation poisoning. On the other hand, nobody likes to be crushed in a car accident. Yet 40,000 people die each year in the US due to car accidents. The death toll from Chernobyl is set at about 16,000 over a period over several years. And that was the result of an ideological approach the put the Party above everything else. In the rest of the world, where engineers were not forced to keep Marx’s Manifest alongside their physics textbooks, the worst accident (three miles island) has caused zero deaths. Indeed, it is one of the safest industries. Mind you, I am not saying that accidents don’t happen. It just that they are contained by proper engineering practices.
Waste Storage: this is a political as much as a technological problem. However, new generation reactors produce much less high-radioactivity material, since the waste can be regenerated to new fuel. OF course, there is the ancillary problem of non proliferation and control. The Green party wants the proof that nothing will happen to waste stored in the Yucca Mountain. OF course, that is impossible to prove. But so it is impossible to prove that tomorrow I will not be crushed by a falling tree, hit by a car, struck by lightning yet I will leave my house to enjoy life like I do every day.
Yes, Obama once in a while tosses in the word nuclear, but my impression is that the green base in his party will make sure that that won’t happen. On the other hand, McCain has put forward a proposal that modest as it is, will move us closer (maybe only 10%) to the goal that both campaigns agree of reducing dependence on carbon emitting oil.
October 20th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
This is a no brainer. Mcain thinks a prize will entice researchers/innovators to do better or more. As if nobody has been trying to do this already. How are we supposed to invent a “super battery” if you don’t fund basic research. Also look at the timelines. Yet again McCain has set a lazy timeline to reduce carbon emissions well past his lifetime, so he wont have to do anything hard or be held accountable. Obama’s timeline means that he will have to make some dramatic changes during his first term and set things in motion to continue reducing pollution. We have already had a space race that benefited our country. Now it is time to look to the future and have an energy race that will create jobs and excite the country to excel.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Question 3 shows who really understands our current condition and who has no idea of what he is talking about. Our current electrical grid is out dated and cant handle the power we are producing now. The last I heard it would take 10 years and $500B to bring iour power grid up to snuff. McCain wants to add 45 nuclear reactors onto a power grid that couldnt handle 2 or 3 reactors. I guess he hasnt heard we are having to shut down wind turbines when they generate to much energy on really windy days. We havent built a reactor in 30 years because no one wants one in their back yard. So he fails on two known issues.
Obama hit the nail on the head with his answer. Distributed energy production is the way to go and can be done without waiting 10 years or spending $500Billion dollars. Every home has a roof, put solar cells on those roofs, a energy storage system in the garage and a computer connected to the (Internet) electrical company and the home owners computer. During the day the solar cells charge up the storage system and the power company can borrow the excess when needed. The home owner comes home, plugs in his electric car and the storage system recharges the cars fuel cell or batteries. The home owner get a free (no gasoline required) round trip to work, mall, groceries or movies each day and the utilities get something they dont have, and energy storage system they can call on when they need it and where they need it. Do you really think our power grid could handle 10 million cars comming home at 5pm and being plugged in? This is the only solution that would work. Work in a credit system so the home owner can gain credit for the excess and donate those credits to the poor and you wont have the elderly cooking to death during the summer and freezing to death during the winter. Electical companies get power generation without investing billions. Home owners get homes in high demand (realstate) and home that increase in value. Tens of thousands of businesses will pop up to install the systems (just like the internet revolution) and hire and train millions of workers in a new earth friendly business. I am glade to see Obama understands how to fix alot of problems at one time (home prices, energy, jobs and new technology). It all could be stated within 6 months of his taking office, so I really dont see anything close to an economic depression if Obama wins. It should be another Clinton style economic boom that will last 10 years. If McCain wins, well the job will be 10 times harder because energy companies will own the electricity, we will have to wait on voters who are willing to put a Nuclear reactor in their back yard and we will have no control of our lives. Personally, I am fed up with all the hands in my face every payday wanting a chunk of my paycheck. I would rather live under Obama’s oil free, gasoline free, electric company simi-free world. You know, I will be getting close to retirement soon and I do not want some utility company letting be die of heat or cold because I couldn pay my electric bill, just like they do every single year.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
One last remark.
Obama has everything to loose and McCain has noting to loose. Should Obama act anything close to Bush (do nothing and let the planet continue to die or lie or do nothing at all) it would be a very, very long time before another minority ever had the chance to become president. He will set the path by which all others will follow. I ecpect him to do nothing less but show us what one of the greatest leaders in history will be like.
MCain is 72 and will be 76 in his first term. If he made it to 2 terms thats 80 years old. There will always be another rich white guy as president, so he really has nothing to loose by sitting around and letting the status quo stay the same. The last 70 year old we had in office had alzhimers and let 2.5 million men, women and children live under bridges for 8 years while he spent tillions on Sar Wars. He too had noting to loose because after all, the poor are powerless. I would hae had more trust in McCain if he had choozen a really qualified person such as Condalesa Rice as VP.
October 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
No sense of urgency on the part of either candidate. McCain opens his blurb with “over time”. We need action TODAY. I want a president who will announce the creation of a “Manhattan Project on Energy” to eliminate fossil fuels. We had one to create the bomb, we had one because of Sputnik.
Reactors take 30 years to come on line, oil fields, 10 years, rebuilding the grid 20 years. Reducing waste can occur over night. I want my president to use his office as a bully pulpit to educate people on reducing waste. But how do you get Joe Plumber to stop sitting in the Price Club parking lot in his Hummer with the engine/AC running for an hour and a half reading Field and Stream while the little woman shops? How do you get homeowners and businesses to stop watering the street in front of their homes and businesses at 3 in the afternnon every summer day. Stop the tailgating and you save 10% of your fuel cost. Univ of Illinois did a study back in the 1980’s that concluded that if every American weighed their medically sound weight, no foreign oil need be imported. And Americans went out and gained an average of 20 pounds since.
An article in Consummer’s Report stated that “quiescent current” consumes the energy production of 12 coal fired plants alone at a cost of $5 billion a year while producing nothing.
Props to Obama for knowing that reactor technology design is very different from the existing. New gen reactor designs produce very little waste, are extremely efficient. Nuclear fuel reserves will last no more than 130 years according to some estimates without the new designs.
Incentives to restructure working shifts to reduce rush hour waste, telecommuting, flight back to the city centers, and revamp high speed rail. Everyone is talking about more fuel efficient cars .. but long haul trucks are still running their engines at idle for 12 hours at a time while their drivers take mandatory breaks. Plug those babies into the grid instead.
The Kola oil borehole is 12 kilometers deep. If we can bore that deep for oil, why not for geothermal. What about all the abandoned mines that are being used for physics research. We can’t use them for geothermal? What about the Gulf Stream? The energy in the GS exceeds the combined power of all the rivers in the world and there is a similar feature off the western coast of South America and JApan.
Come on candidates. Think outside of the box. Both candidates get f’s on this one from me although Obama seems a little more in touch with the modern world while the Bush/Palin/McCain ticket is still trying to salvage the oil industry.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Neither candidate emphasizes the economic boost from eliminating dependence on petroleum fuels, nor the urgency of the problem. Maybe it will take 10 years to complete the renovation of our electric grid, but improvements & benefits can begin much more quickly.
McCain emphasizes nuclear generation, ignoring waste disposal & the enormous time required to bring it on line.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:01 am
[...] be your voice on energy. Both candidates have answered ScienceDebate2008 and laid out what our energy forecast would look like in their administration. Now it’s up to us to determine who would best lead the way in [...]
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Electric Power Grid Security Infrastructure…
I can’t believe I missed this! I’m going to have to do some more reading me thinks….
June 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
[...] I’ve got more experience in Washington than the governor and arguably better ideas on energy, foreign policy, the economy, and homeland [...]