John McCain’s plan focuses on encouraging energy production, while Barack Obama offers only limited support for boosting domestic production of oil and natural gas. Worse, Obama wants to increase taxes on energy companies, a sure path to reducing domestic energy production and raising costs. Similarly, McCain’s plan recognizes the vital importance of coal, which we use to produce half our electricity, to America’s energy future. We are frequently called the “Saudi Arabia” of coal because we have 29 percent of world coal reserves. By contrast, the Obama campaign has sent at best conflicting signals on coal. McCain also endorses increased nuclear energy production, a subject on which Obama waffles. McCain’s emphasis on providing incentives for increasing domestic production and choice of a running mate who has successfully carried through energy initiatives contrast favorably with the Obama-Biden plan’s vague promises. – Andrew P. Morriss, professor of law and business and professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Barack Obama’s strategy is more sound and promises better environmental stewardship. Obama says “use it or lose it” to companies that aren’t using their drilling rights. Obama is aware of the challenges, and he has pledged to help companies overcome these obstacles. In contrast, John McCain’s plan would open more of the continental shelf to drilling than would Obama’s, but he wouldn’t pressure oil companies to work harder to explore and develop resources on already leased properties. Obama calls for investing $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy technologies. The heart of McCain’s plan for renewables calls for “rationalizing the current patchwork of temporary tax credits” for energy sources like solar, wind and hydro. Obama’s plan, while no panacea for an oil-addicted America, breaks more boldly with lackluster policies of recent presidents. – Matthew R. Auer, professor at Indiana University
37 Comments
I haven’t been impressed by either candidate’s energy plans. They both have their holes in them. Whoever gets into office will have rewrite their plan anyway.
McCain wants to build 43 new nuclear plants. That sounds good, but the devil is in the details. McCain doesn’t understand how complicated it is to build nuclear plants in the USA. Environmentalists don’t want it and the building of the plants would involve a 10 year wait.
Obama thinks we can just create new green technology at the sanp of a finger. We’re going to have to wait until the green technology matures.
I believe that modern Presidents should have backgrounds in science, similar to Germany’s Chancellor Merkel. No more warmongers and lawyers, just engineers, chemists or physicists.
T.Boone Pickens has it right and we should do all of the above.
First, starting off converting our combustion engines to natural gas.
Secondly, drill for more oil,
Third, get more production from coal in cleaner methods.
Fourth, nuclear power.
And of course, inventions for innovative use of energy conservation. Just can’t see too much of it going on right now with the current economic situation.
“Obama’s plan, while no panacea for an oil-addicted America, breaks more boldly with lackluster policies of recent presidents.”
“We can’t drill our way out of this problem.”
T Boone Pickens
Where does McCain plan on getting the over $300 billion for the new nuclear plants? Since he’ll be giving huge tax cuts to corporations there will be less revenue to pay for the nuclear plants which are paid for by the taxpayer and won’t start producing power for 12 years.
Obama’s plan to tax the energy companies is taxing the windfall profits on oil companies. That’s nothing new but the taxes will be reinvested in the community by building up renewable energy sources which can produce energy in a year.
McCain’s plan is costly, requires more deficit spending and won’t produce power for years. Obama’s plan doesn’t require deficit spending and produces power quickly. It’s a no-brainer, Obama’s plan is better.
“I believe that modern Presidents should have backgrounds in science, similar to Germany’s Chancellor Merkel. No more warmongers and lawyers, just engineers, chemists or physicists.” — rsmueller
———-
From SEED, Dr. President:
(Under bushco,) “… scientists have been ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues. Policies have gone forward repeatedly without adequate scientific input and sometimes in spite of it.”
“Along with the neglect of science has come a broader neglect of expertise, competence, and even functional government. These are, perhaps, matters not so disparate. For science doesn’t merely provide a way of expanding knowledge of the world. It doesn’t just provide answers to pressing questions; it changes the conversation itself. Science—and the broader way of thinking that comes with it—trains its adherents and practitioners to relish the very act of questioning for its own sake, of figuring out what’s true and false, of determining what works and what fails.”
“Tired of Bush, Americans now have the opportunity to elect a new leader who is his antithesis—a president who understands how science works, and who surrounds himself with trusted science experts so as to remain continually informed; one who grasps that scientific uncertainty is a fundamental facet of reality to be embraced, rather than to be exploited as an excuse for political inaction.”
“Indeed, a new president should embrace the language and values of science not out of idealism, but rather as the highest form of pragmatism. Policies work best when the best information flows unimpeded into the decision-making process, which makes scientific thinking, in its broadest sense, a formula for success.
much more at:
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/10/dr_president.php
Build the nukes! Other than coal, it is the only really significant energy production alternative we have to foreign oil dependence.
Both are flawed in one way or another. Obama’s, however, relies upon technologies that do not exist, and have little likelihood of existing in the near future. It is, in effect, the pie-in-the-sky plan – if we just wish hard enough, it will come.
Maybe those new technologies are just around the corner. But we can’t bet the farm on it. There is, at present, no technology, or combination thereof (aside from nuclear) which has the potential to significantly replace fossil fuels. That’s simply a fact. And Obama’s plan conveniently ignores that fact.
McCain’s is more grounded in reality.
GMC70, solar, wind and geothermal power do exist.
Presidents used to rely on the Office of Technology Assessment to learn about important new technologies…
“OTA was abolished (technically “de-funded”) in the “Contract with America” period of Newt Gingrich’s Republican ascendancy in Congress.’
Reagan said that Congress can get all the infomation from lobbyists, instead…
sheesh…..
The only technology that does not yet exist (though both candidates tout it) is “Clean Coal.”
Some have good reasons to argue coal cannot ee ‘clean.’
Clearly it needs an investment in development. Bush pushed a big program … the FutureGen project. The project was still in the development stage when its funding was cancelled in January 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
European cars get 50 – 60% better gas mileage than ours… Senator Obama wants to revitalize Detroit by achieving similar gains here: jobs, growth and less oil consumption…
Yes.
As GMC said, McCain’s plan is based in reality.
Obama would have you go to the Moon on fossil fuel, then Hope that you can Change the fuel used in your rocket to get you back. Obama would hang you out to dry, and leave you up a creek without a paddle, and send a little boy out to do a man’s job.
McCain would fuel the rocket to get you to the moon and back, AND AT THE SAME TIME, work on developing alternative fuels that will help you make future trips to the moon. McCain would keep his feet planted firmly on the ground, and would not have his head held high in the pie high sky.
Buzzwords & Cliches & Superlatives account for 99% of Obamaspeak, according to the latest study which used software to analyze the words of The One.
http://www.cliches.biz/clichecleaner/ccinfo.html
After the Cliche Cleaner was used on Obama’s speeches, there were only two words left in any of his speeches:
Barack Obama
Barack Obama has said:
He is for clean air and clean water.
He is for alternative energy.
He is for peace on Earth.
He is for saving the Environment.
He is for Hope and Change that you can Believe In!
In order to accomplish his goals (which constantly change by the way AND are not consistent with his voting record or with what he has said in the past), Obama will use Fairy Dust and wave a Magic Wand. Then life will be wonderful!
DavidB
European cars tend to be tuna cans that weigh 1/3 of what the average US car weighs. You want to ride in a death trap be my guest. But don’t force me to haul my children around in one.
Europeans have also embraced diesel as fuel in passenger cars. It gets better mileage because it contains more BTU’s per gallon. About 20 percent more.
Here’s some modest reality.
Solar Power
Thanks to Tucson Electric Power (TEP), the same bright sun that attracted so many people to Arizona will play a big part in powering their future. Our customers’ SunShare systems, combined with TEP’s solar generation resources, produced just under 9,400 megawatt-hours (MWh) of power in 2006. That’s enough energy to meet the annual electric needs of 880 average Tucson homes!
Partnerships with the city of Tucson, local builders and neighborhood improvement districts have helped to establish Tucson as a center of solar innovation.
SunShare
Solar technology is being installed at schools, parks and other community locations through TEP’s SunShare program, which reimburses customers for installing photovoltaic systems.
http://www.tucsonelectric.com/Community/Environment/Programs/index.asp
There’s a difference between acknowledging the logistics involveed in creating a green economy, and stupidly pretending it can’t be done. Talk about not facing reality.
Exxon Paleontologists Call For Increased U.S. Fossil Production
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30015
You want to ride in a death trap be my guest.
The crash-test ratings would tend to punch a hole in that prejudice.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/
That’s enough energy to meet the annual electric needs of 880 average Tucson homes!
======
Kinda piss poor if you ask me. That is not very many homes….How much land is this solar plant going to cover? What is the ‘foot print’? How many species are going to lose their land area because it is now shaded by solar panels?
The question above is relating to solar farms, not individual roof systems. Sorry for the confusion.
Mccain would have to force nuke plants on states that don’t want them. Then there’s always that little problem of where you store all the wasted fuel.
Did the technology exist for the moon program when Kennedy announced it? A leader needs vision.
Did the technology exist for Reagan’s Star Wars shield when he announced it (that one’s still being worked on)?
Obama-progressive. Mccain-regressive.
wind energy is already going full speed in the panhandles of texas and oklahoma. thousnds more wind generators coming in the next few years. we need to ask GEORGE MCAIN this. if we DRILL-BABY-DRILL, is that oil going on the open market, or will we hoard it? i think you all know the answer to that!
“outlander
Posted October 23, 2008 at 8:26 am | Permalink
Build the nukes! Other than coal, it is the only really significant energy production alternative we have to foreign oil dependence.”
Are you saying the options are have soccor moms driving nuclear powered mini-vans vs buy foreign oil, or are you confusing two topics?
One thing that most people miss when they talk about opening up Alaska and our coastal areas to drilling is that the drilling will be opened to the free market.
That means that whoever ‘harvests’ the oil will then sell it to the highest bidder in the world market. That oil is not going to go to the US to keep our prices down, the oil producers are going to sell it on the open market.
The only way this additional production will keep US prices down is if total world demand is stagnant between now and the time any oil from additional production offshore or in Alaska hits the market. Then the total world supply will be higher with the same level of demand so the world prices will drop, thus the US prices will drop.
If you were not aware, most increased demand for oil is coming from outside the USA, so we really have not control over it and the demand by developing countries is expected to increase dramatically in the next 5-10 years.
The other way to keep prices low is to nationalize US oil production and create a government department of oil that will carefully approve/deny, monitor, track, and regulate all oil production, sales and importation to the US. This would have the effect of creating a US only market so supply could be adjusted to demand so as to maintain a constant price. Or free-market prices could be subsidized for US consumers. Neither of these options should seem appealing to anyone who likes capitalism, free trade, or votes for a ‘drill here drill now’ mantra.
Crash test ratings are not derived from crashing a little Honda Civic with a Chevy Suburban.
Crashing into a wall or having a constant sized side impact device used does NOT factor in differences in vehicle size.
No matter what Obama SAYS, there are laws of Physics and Nature that cannot be changed.
Oh, and don’t forget, roughly 25% (10,000) lives are lost when semi-trucks run over a car or crash into one. The bigger your vehicle, the better your odds of survival.
(Trucks to Trains to Trucks, anyone?)
Are you saying the options are have soccor moms driving nuclear powered mini-vans vs buy foreign oil, or are you confusing two topics?
—————
Oh, was the is the soccer mom nuclear minivan thread? Sorry Brian.
Hopefully whoever gets in the White House won’t be arrogant or foolish enough to let the Big Oil
Companies come in and write the energy policies the way George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did in their first term. And to add salt to the wound, those records are still sealed so the public does not know what really happened in that meeting.
And then we wonder why we’re still dependent on foreign oil?
brains_never- Or there is the Hussein Obama plan….
for starters,
Meet with Hugo Chavez, give him his own stamp, declare National “Hugo” day…
No matter what Obama SAYS, there are laws of Physics and Nature that cannot be changed.
Which is why the mass of the impact object is the same for all vehicles. Sheesh: Physics 101.
Big unwieldy vehicles may crush, say, Suburus with impunity, but I’d rather drive a vehicle that actually handles well and is designed to protect the passengers. In fact, an argument can be made that the oversized, gas-guzzling phalluses we’ve been driving have made our streets more dangerous.
“biased1
Posted October 23, 2008 at 11:30 am | Permalink
brains_never- Or there is the Hussein Obama plan….
for starters,
Meet with Hugo Chavez, give him his own stamp, declare National “Hugo” day…”
Try phrasing your remark as something intelligible next time, lil’ pardner
RAGE
“You want to ride in a death trap be my guest.
The crash-test ratings would tend to punch a hole in that prejudice.”
They aren’t testing the European cars I’m talking about. I’m talking about cars that make a VW Passat look like a Coup de Ville
Rage
If 880 homes is all they’re getting, there there is no significant replacement for fossil fuels. I’ll stand completely behind my statement:
There is, at present, no technology or combination thereof (aside from nuclear) which has the potential to significantly replace fossil fuels. That’s simply a fact.
Solar, wind, geothermal will pull off a few thousand homes, here and there. Perhaps a few hundred thousand homes. But absent some new discovery, which does not appear to be on the horizon at present(or rescending the laws of physics as we know them), they simply do not have the potential to significantly replace fossil fuels. The fact of the matter is that, absent some at this point unknowable new breakthrough, fossil fuels will supply the bulk of our energy needs for at least the nest half century. All the wishing in the world will not change that.
We must operate in the world we have, not the world we wish we had.
“GMC70
Posted October 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Rage
There is, at present, no technology or combination thereof (aside from nuclear) which has the potential to significantly replace fossil fuels. That’s simply a fact….The fact of the matter is that, absent some at this point unknowable new breakthrough, fossil fuels will supply the bulk of our energy needs for at least the nest half century….”
At which point due to drastically reduced supply, the cost to use them any further will be prohibitively high.
The point is not that we should abruptly quit using fossile fuels today, but that we should plan for tomorrow by actively and aggressively working on viable alternatives.
The point is not that we should abruptly quit using fossile fuels today, but that we should plan for tomorrow by actively and aggressively working on viable alternatives.
. . .which is something that simply hasn’t been even tried at the federal level, particularly under Gorge Gush and Derrick Halliburton. Jimmy Carter proposed such ideas, and was roundly ridiculed for his foresight.
. . .which is something that simply hasn’t been even tried at the federal level,
True, under ANY administration. Both parties are equally guilty here. But while we cannot simply “drill our way out” of this, neither can we ignore additional exploitation of fossil fuels. There is simply no alternative to fossil fuels on the horizon which can at this point take their place.
However, simply pouring federal money into alternative technologies distorts the development of those technologies; they become driven by political/funding considerations rather than economic/feasibilityones (i.e. corn ethanol). While start-up funding makes sense, it rarely remains “start-up” funding. The funding develops its own constituency, and it becomes problematic to end that funding; we know that the closest thing to immortality on this earth is a government program, whether it works or not is irrelevant. At some point, technologies which make economic sense will not need subsidies. If a technology can’t compete in the marketplace, it should not get subsidies.
But it will.
Because a political/economic constituancy will become dependant on it, and look to the feds to continue their largess. The politician representing the district which benefits from this research will become it’s champion, not because it works (whether it does or not) but because it funnels dollars to his district.
Remember – we have a gov’t largely bought by big interests because government makes decisions that effects those interests so directly and to such a large degree. The only way to get “special interests” out of gov’t is to to get gov’t, as much as is reasonably possible, out of business. Yes, I’m still in my heart of hearts a small-government conservative, damn it.
Gov’t has not demonstrated any competence to do the things we now ask it to to, much less the additional things we now seem to be asking it to do. I don’t believe gov’t is competent to direct the develoment of alternative technologies; frankly, I don’t think they’re competent to find their ass with both hands and a flashlight.
Heehee.. European cars still get 50 – 60 % better gas mileage.
Yes, do avoid having semi’s puncture your car.
And we all know the danger of big top-heavy vehicles that are prone to rollovers….
70% of our oil is used for transportation. 40-50% less use in the passenger fleet sounds pretty good.
GMC70 posted October 23, 2008 at 4:59 pm
But while we cannot simply “drill our way out” of this, neither can we ignore additional exploitation of fossil fuels. There is simply no alternative to fossil fuels on the horizon which can at this point take their place.
—————
There are two sides to the oil issue — supply and demand.
The U.S. cannot significantly increase domestic oil “supply”. And future increases will mostly only replace declining current sources, like Prudhoe Bay.
But we can significantly reduce “demand”, with current technology and materials.
That reduction in demand also reduces the amount of biofuels needed.
A very detailed report, that was tasked by the Pentagon.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
The United States use to be known for “ If needed or dreamed of we would make it” now we wait for someone else to develop it or dream it. Then look for the profit in it and stand by waiting.