Agreement and a Caveat (4.00 / 3)

I definitely agree with the post.  Clean coal is a shell game and completely unnecessary to boot.  I'm hoping it won't be pushed hard in actual policy but is more a campaigning tool, though I'm certainly not counting on that.

One caveat I want to offer with Obama's plan is it's not clear to me if by "renewable energy", they're including hydropower.  In the pdf plan, it says "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will establish a 10 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 10 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2012."  It doesn't mention hydropower specifically, though it doesn't specifically rule it out, either.

Here in Portland, I subscribe to green power through PGE.  That doesn't include hydropower because that's already a huge element of our local power--41.5% of the standard options.  The Green Source option, then, provides 85% wind and 15% biomass--no hydropower.

According to this site, hydropower accounts for about 9% of the U.S. energy supply.  So if Obama's plan does not involve hydropower, then we would be looking at quintupling our current ~2% renewable energy supply by 2012.

Now, even if that's the case, I still think we need to be much more aggressive.  But there is a huge caveat in just what exactly Obama means by "renewable energy."  If anyone knows for sure, please let us know.

---

by: Joel Caris @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 17:54:38 PM UTC

Correction (4.00 / 2)

Ah, I see now that article says non-hydro sources are approx. 3% of U.S. energy now.  So if Obama's plan does not include hydro, we'd be looking at a tripling by 2012.  Decent, but still not good enough.  Probably we will get there easily without any new push from Obama.  I know in the Columbia gorge, there are so many new wind farms being proposed, that there isn't actually enough capacity along the lines to carry all the power (which is another huge issue that will need to be addressed--carrying capacity and infrastructure.)

Of course, what we could do with solar if we had the government's will and financial backing is mind-numbing.  Start slapping solar panels on every building around, meter the electricity going into the system, and we make a huge difference in this country.  It would also be a damn good start to turning around the economy, especially in my area, where the largest solar panel manufacturing facility in the country is opening Friday.

---

by: Joel Caris @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:01:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

good point (4.00 / 3)

I thought Obama was including hydro when he promised to get to 10 percent by 2012, but perhaps I am wrong.

Either way, I don't think his goal is ambitious enough. But if you are right, then it's more ambitious than I gave Obama credit for in the post.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:39:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great post, Desmoinesdem. (4.00 / 1)

After Obama is elected, we need to push Congress and Obama hard on Gore's Plan.  

---

by: Tom Wells @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 21:30:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Always love to see desmoinesdem on the front page (4.00 / 7)

I think Obama has failed in both debates (and in countless major speeches) to tell the American public a very important truth. Solar and wind energy work. The are working now, they have worked in the past, and they can work even better in the future. They are affordable, practical and profitable TODAY, not in 10, 20 or 50 years. The only thing stopping America from having a energy supply based mostly on wind and solar is political will and public ignorance.

Most people still view solar and wind as some future technology that might work, assuming the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. They think that even if they were workable and affordable (and they are) that we our energy supply would be cut off should the winds calm or the clouds come out. This is, of course, a load of bull, but people will keep believing it until someone corrects them.

Obama has failed to mention the most basic facts about alternative energy and, as you point out, would rather talk up ""clean"" coal and nuclear energy (though I would argue these are electoral strategies, not heartfelt policy positions).

And interestingly, Al Gore seems to have the same problem. I don't want to hear about the dangers of global warming, I want to hear all about how EASY and PROFITABLE it is to start building solar and wind infrastructure right now. Every person should be asking themselves not "how do we fix global warming" but rather "why aren't we aggressively expanding wind and solar to curb global warming?".  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 17:59:18 PM UTC

he promised 5 million new jobs again today (0.00 / 0)

Building renewable energy sources like windmills. Sounds better than "easy and profitable" but of course I am not a political consultant.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:22:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, the jobs argument is good (4.00 / 3)

But people don't buy it if they think Solar and Wind are a decade away. He needs to force the point that solar and wind can begin to form the backbone of American energy production right now, and those jobs could be created in the first term of his administration. I just think public perception is lagging on this issue by about a decade and Obama needs to correct that if he wants his energy argument to carry water with the voting public.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:48:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I totally agree with your comment (0.00 / 0)

With a strong government investment and incentive policy, we could deal with the transmission and storage issues that are the only argument against wind and solar that makes any sense at all.

I am not an engineer. I know lots of smart people are working on this problem, though.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:41:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nuclear Reprocessing (2.67 / 3)

The amount of nuclear waste produced can be reduced dramatically if we resume nuclear fuel reprocessing. The ban on reprocessing is one of the most wrong-headed energy policies ever.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 17:59:55 PM UTC

Yes, but... (4.00 / 3)

The real question is, why construct more nuclear plants when we can just as easily construct alternative energy supplies that don't create any waste?
I simply cannot comprehend why anyone would choose nuclear over the other available options. Though changing our policy for existing nuclear plants seems like it would be a good idea.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:08:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cost? (0.00 / 0)

As much as solar and wind have improved, Nuclear still beats 'em when it comes down to the bottom line. You also have to consider the footprint of manufacturing solar panels.

I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in wind and solar -- we should, lots -- but we can get to energy independence and get off carbon MUCH sooner with nuclear in the mix.

Even if we don't build more nuclear plants, we should start reprocessing fuel to reduce the amount of nuclear waste we produce and reduce the amount of environmentally destructive mining that takes place.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:35:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

nuclear power is very expensive (4.00 / 1)

from what I have read, especially if you take into account the government assuming liability for any accidents or catastrophes.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:43:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Cost (0.00 / 0)

I'm "pro-nuclear" in the sense that I think it is a legitimate option, but it doesn't stand up to the cost test very well at all.  Without government funding there would be no nuclear power plants.

If nuclear power becomes cost efficient within a reasonable carbon tax environment, I don't the the government should stop them from being built.  But I don't think that is the reality of the situation.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:51:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That may well be the case (0.00 / 0)

I am not an expert, so I can't speak with any authority. I always got the impression that nuclear was relatively cheap.

It still has other advantages, being that it can be built anywhere right now, and there isn't much limit to how much capacity can be built. Even if we go nuts with wind, it's limited to covering, what, 20% of our needs? That's great, but we've still got to cover the other 80% in a cost-effective way.

I'm a pragmatist. Let's pursue all reasonable alternatives.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 19:01:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nuclear is more costly over time (0.00 / 0)

And soon, even the upfront investment won't be competitive:

http://solveclimate.com/blog/2...

Renewable technology is an objectively better investment.

---

by: RapsodiaStellare @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 19:08:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

efficiency? (0.00 / 0)

How many acres of solar panels or wind turbines does it take to generate the energy from a single nuclear facility?

I honestly don't know the answer, but it seems to me that nuclear power is far more space efficient, which helps greatly when you factor in the transmission difficulties that plague solar and wind.

---

by: ccarollo @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 22:40:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No to Nuclear Reprocessing (4.00 / 2)

It separates out plutonium as well as uranium.  Plutonium is used for nuclear weapons.  

If we were to use reprocessing technology, then other nations will do it, too.  How many other nations will then divert plutonium to create nuclear weapons?  That is an experiment I would rather not know the answer to as surely some will.

---

by: ammasdarling @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 20:19:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They already do (0.00 / 0)

I get the anti-proliferation argument against reprocessing, but other countries are already doing it right now. Unless we plan to loosen up control over our own nuclear materials, reprocessing isn't an increased proliferation risk.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 21:00:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

France only (0.00 / 0)

As far as I know, France is the only country that reprocesses nuclear fuel. And France's reprocessing is a major problem in trying to convince other countries not to do the same (and not divert the plutonium into weapons).

There is currently no good way to dispose of nuclear waste. Many of the components of nuclear waste are dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years, many components are chemically toxic, and plutonium can be made into weapons. Scientists who have studied the problem -- and are not paid by the nuclear industry -- warn that there are unlikely to be any good solutions to the waste problem in the future.

Moreover, nuclear power has only been cost competitive because the industry has been heavily subsidized for decades (and still is).

With all these negatives, why don't we just focus on energy efficiency, solar, and wind? These technologies are very benign and very competitive against unsubsidized alternatives.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 00:34:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nuclear is cheap? What about external costs ..... (0.00 / 0)

the largest of which is the storage cost, combined with the anxiety and other costs associated with the risk of contamination of aquifers, etc., if the storage facility leaks? No storage location has been found yet, to my knowledge, that truly has a negligible risk of disruption by seismic events that could release radioactive waste into unpredictably large areas of adjacent environment.

At least some of the French reactors may have also run into the downtime factors that made most of the American reactors expensive nightmares to operate. The French heatwave last (2007?) summer also shut down one or more nuclear plants because there was not enough cool water flow to supply the huge cooling towers needed to keep each reactor from a "meltdown" - i.e, a China Syndrome event like the near-catastrophic event described in the book "We Almost Lost Detroit," which occurred several years before Three Mile Island.

[A "China syndrome" event occurs, if I remember correctly, when the water in the cooling system fails to keep the radioactive metal ores cooler than their melting point; the metal melts and bores its way to the bottom of the containment vessel. Enough of the metal pools at the bottom of the vessel to create a small explosion that breaches the containment vessel and releases a huge amount of radioactivity into the atmosphere, as at Chernobyl. OR the containment specifications of the vessel are exceeded and the superhot molten radioactive metal ore burns its way out through the bottom of the containment vessel and contaminates the local aquifers and other subsurface structures with huge amounts of radiation.]

Your confidence in the current state of the U.S. Nuclear industry's degree of "control over our own nuclear materials" is also woefully misplaced. Security at existing nuclear plants has been consistently found to be below standard, an easy target for penetration by a sufficiently skilled and expert team of terrorists. The existing large public subsidies for nuclear plants would have to increase by the amount of the costs of staffing every nuclear plant in the country with a complement of U.S. Marines who have experience guarding the nuclear missiles that are carried on U.S. nuclear submarines (the "boomers"). Otherwise, every new nuclear power generating plant would become an attractive target for terrorists.

Similarly, the security of the plutonium isotopes produced by reprocessing spent fuel could only be reasonably guaranteed by Marines or other highly trained military guards under military command. The erratic performance of hired security personnel from Blackwater and other private "security contractors" in Iraq is compelling evidence that it would not be safe to allow any private power company or contractor to be responsible for the safeguarding of these highly dangerous radioactive products. Many reprocessing proposals are designed to keep the plutonium product from being weapons grade, but the major risk from the plutonium is contamination of a large area, not a nuclear weapon explosion.

Shipping the spent fuel from the plant that used it to the reprocessing facility would also create both significant risks of a release of hazardous substances (here radioactive waste with hazards that may approximate the hazards of the chlorine gas released from time to time - sometimes to fatal effect - when railroad tanker cars full of chlorine gas have become derailed) AND significant risks of interception of the waste materials by terrorists who could use the waste to contaminate municipal water supplies, for example.

I think there are many more problems that the current sponsors of a nuclear energy revival are hoping the public will not remember, but I hope the ones I have described are enough to persuade you that you should not be so quick to condemn the Carter administration's decision to kill reprocessing in the U.S. thirty years ago.

---

by: hardheaded liberal @ Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 05:30:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hydropower (0.00 / 0)

I'm shocked to hear hydropower increased by 34.7%, or really that it increased at all.  I assumed our hydro resources were basically tapped out for decades.  If anything, I've only heard of old damns being torn down.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:05:06 PM UTC

I also find that surprising (0.00 / 0)

and I don't know what the explanation is. I'm sure some expert in the field would be able to tell us what is going on.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:51:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I also find that surprising (0.00 / 0)

and I don't know what the explanation is. I'm sure some expert in the field would be able to tell us what is going on.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 19:00:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

haha (0.00 / 0)

Check out this funny video about Sarah Palin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: liberalcraze2008 @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:14:48 PM UTC

Taking the Initiative (4.00 / 5)

Thanks for this post. It is much needed. Given the economic crisis, the economic benefits of renewable energy will have to be front and center, both in terms of new jobs and in reducing the energy costs of business, individuals, and the nation. Among others, Van Jones and Al Gore have been leaders here.

Obama's and Democratic plans generally are too weak to address climate change seriously and to make a large dent in economic problems. They also will face a strugggle between the fiscal hawks and those who believe that spending government money is the best way to get out of hard times.

The environmental movement is going to have to step it up. Gore's plan should be put to a vote, a referendum, with the economic benefits stressed. There are local elections in the fall of 2009 in many parts of the country. Initiatives can be placed on the ballot through petition in most local jurisdictions, or placed on the ballot through action by the city council or board of supervisors in even more places.

One way to do this is to introduce legislation making Gore's plan the federal goal. Before the vote, the environmental movement should announce that they plan to place initiatives on the ballot where possible in the fall of 2009 in the districts (or in cities in states with senators) against those who opposed the plan. And they need to make that a credible commitment.

I believe there are ways to craft such an initiative to benefit local communities so that it would pass. One way is to include in the initiative support for federal legislation that those communities that vote and then organize themselves to become model renewable energy communities would get federal assistance to do so.

---

by: johnraymond @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:14:57 PM UTC

Clever Idea (0.00 / 0)

I like it.  I don't know if it would work or not, but it's intriguing, could grab attention, and would be a nice, aggressive move.  Unless Obama and the Democrats came out in 2009 pushing strong, aggressive renewable energy measures, I would be very open to this strategy.

---

by: Joel Caris @ Mon Oct 13, 2008 at 18:20:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]