One addition is needed to the plan: EVs. They are the future, and if Detroit misses this again they're dead, and the US economy and world ecology will be in yet deeper trouble. Hybrids and biodiesel are only short-term bridges, they are not the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 1930 we had more than 23 million cars on the road, and Obama's replacement of 1 million with electric cars would have been a drop in the bucket then. Today we have a car for every man, woman, and child. One million electric cars amounts to a government subsidy for the auto-makers and nothing more.

Who will have these one million new cars? Obviously the poor will be left out of this innovative new technology, forced to soak up the price of gasoline. We need simple and cheap forms of transportation, not hi-tech gimmicks used by the rich to help consolidate their position as rulers of the planet.

Coal and nuclear are not suitable substitutes for oil, no matter how many pretty adjectives, like clean and safe, that are added to the name.

Most of Obama's energy focus is just a hand-out to the same corporations paying for him to be elected our next president. Go figure. True solutions, decentralizing the power grid, relocalizing food production, and placing a premium on human labor and skill when handing out federal contracts, are a few smart solutions being completely ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The bullet about "clean coal" was conveniently skipped over - there is no such thing as "clean" coal.

- the technology does not exist.
- the technology is dangerous - millions of tons of liquified CO2 gas pumped into the earth like a ticking time bomb, f**king brilliant!
- the technology is inefficient, wasting 40 percent of the energy in the coal to liquify it. That means you need to increase strip mining and Mountain Top Removal Mining by another 40 percent just to break even!

The same goes for nuclear, we have beat that horse to death in other threads.

Make no mistake these are hugely expensive political payoffs to the relevant industries!

Meanwhile, NO MENTION OF A MANHATTEN PROJECT FOR RENEWABLES!!! Instead, basically a recitation of the right wing talking point that wind and solar aren't ready quite yet and we need to "transition" into them with massive nuclear and coal investments!

For example, the promise of 25 percent renewable power by 2025 is hogwash. We are on pace right now to EXCEED that level due to wind power alone! These are truly timid goals!

This is a giant step backward - a complete abdication of leadership on building the green industrial base that the author mentions off the cuff.

I see a whole lot of political pandering in this bloated beached whale and it's already beginning to smell to high heaven!

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The best plan ever put forward by a candidate was that of none other than Hillary Clinton! I would have voted for here for her energy plan alone if I could trust her to implement it. It was brilliant, an environmental scientist's wet dream!

This plan by Obama is foul smelling stench and it makes me ill to think about how far it sets us back - just forget about grabbing that promised brass ring of America building its future industrial base around green technologies. It isn't going to happen now. All of the momentum is already in Europe and Japan and nothing on this petty scale is going to change that fact.

Oh, sure, we will be buying a whole lot of renewables products from overseas companies independent of what the US leadership failed to do here, but it would have taken a massive infusion of federal dollars to actually grow those businesses here in the US.

And this is going to skew the whole change dynamic over the next 20 years at least, giving coal and nuclear a huge credibility boost that they so desperately crave, making it that much harder to shake their pernicious grip on our collective throats.

This is just a crushing defeat for all of us.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is no such thing as clean safe nuclear energy. At every step from uranium mining and processing through energy production and eventual storage of spent rods, there is radiation contamination of one sort of another. Further, it is shocking that people don't realize that depleted uranium based weapons in use in the Middle East are blanketing the Northern Hemisphere with radiation, and destroying troops as well a families. Obama's campaign funds from and support for nuclear industries are why I cannot vote for him. Sorry!!!!!!!!!!!! I've voted for the lesser evil for the last time!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I cannot sign up for green power as my utility company has me locked up tight, with no way out. Most states are like this. Most energy consumers are stuck, forever bound to lousy service, coal burning plants and non responsive utility companies.

This monopoly hold on consumers is all part of the problem, because consumers cannot even choose green power if they want it. We need to deregulate all states nationwide.

As more states deregulate, more people will have the DIRECT power to choose 100% green energy, from a competitive source..

Currently only Texas and New York are fully deregulated and offer at least some of their citizens a choice of where to buy their energy, including the choice to buy 100% green, renewable energy.

For a free electric rate comparison and to find a 100% green energy source in Texas and New York, go to;

http://www.aaagreenenergy.com

You should find savings of 4-28% from your present utility bill.

New customers also get a free vacation for switching, and travel miles that add up to more vacations, just for using electricity that you already use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Deaths per terrawatt year [twy] for energy industries, including
Chernobyl. terra=mega mega

fuel......... ........fatalities... .....who......... .......deaths per twy
coal......... .........6400...... ......workers........... .........342
natural gas..... ..1200...... .....workers and public... ...85
hydro........ .......4000..... .......public............ ............883
nuclear........ .........31...... ......workers............ .............8

Nuclear power is proven to be the safest. Source: "The Revenge
of Gaia" by James Lovelock page 102.

Nuclear power is the safest, bar none.
Nuclear fuel is recyclable.
32 countries have nuclear power plants.
There is nothing terrorists can do
to a nuclear power plant.
COAL contains enough URANIUM and THORIUM
to provide fissionable fuel for 5000 years.

We need Thousands of new nuclear power plants
to replace the coal fired power plants that
we MUST shut down to prevent our own EXTINCTION
due to global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Environmental policy = energy policy
Energy policy = environmental policy
because Global Warming
can lead to Hydrogen Sulfide gas coming out of the oceans.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas will Kill all people. Homo Sap will go
EXTINCT unless drastic action is taken.

October 2006 Scientific American

"EARTH SCIENCE
Impact from the Deep
Strangling heat and gases emanating from the earth and sea, not
asteroids, most likely caused several ancient mass extinctions.
Could the same killer-greenhouse conditions build once again?
By Peter D. Ward
downloaded from:
http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322
....................Most of the article omitted......................
But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm
and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900
ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring
about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon
after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is
something our society should never find out."

Press Release
Pennsylvania State University
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Nov. 3, 2003
downloaded from:
http://www.geosociety.org/meetings/2003/prPennStateKump.htm
"In the end-Permian, as the levels of atmospheric oxygen fell and
the levels of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide rose, the upper
levels of the oceans could have become rich in hydrogen sulfide
catastrophically. This would kill most of the oceanic plants and
animals. The hydrogen sulfide dispersing in the atmosphere would
kill most terrestrial life."

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&
file=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

These articles agree with the first 2. They all say 6 degrees C or
1000 parts per million CO2 is the extinction point.

The global warming is already 1.3 degree Farenheit. 11 degrees
Farenheit is about 6 degrees Celsius. The book "Six Degrees" by
Mark Lynas agrees. If the global warming is 6 degrees
centigrade, we humans go extinct. See:
http://www.marklynas.org/
2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell-
summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

"Under a Green Sky" by Peter D. Ward, Ph.D., 2007.
Paleontologist discusses mass extinctions of the past and the one
we are doing to ourselves.

ALL COAL FIRED POWER PLANTS MUST BE
CONVERTED TO NUCLEAR IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID
THE EXTINCTION OF US HUMANS. 32 countries have
nuclear power plants. Only 9 have the bomb. The top 3
producers of CO2 all have nuclear power plants, coal fired power
plants and nuclear bombs. They are the USA, China and India.
Reducing CO2 production by 90% by 2050 requires drastic action
in the USA, China and India. King Coal has to be demoted to a
commoner. Coal must be left in the earth. If you own any coal
stock, NOW is the time to dump it, regardless of loss, because it
will soon be worthless.
I have no financial connection to the nuclear power industry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with mandating the 55mph limit on interstate highways again?

How many electric cars will not be needed if we all slow down...... 20 million at least.
Obama is full of it, with his EV s . They are costly and do not solve the problem not one tenth. What do you do with those used batteries//? Require reduced speed limits on all roads and see how that saves energy for at least a year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is an "easy" way to knock coal out of the picture. "Just" require coal fired
power plants to report their radiation releases under the same standards that
nuclear power plants are required to report their radiation releases. Coal fired
power plants continually release radiation that is far in excess of what is allowed
for a nuclear power plant. I think we agree that we want the burning of coal to
stop. An average coal fired power plant that puts out the same amount of
electricity as the one that burned at Chernobyl, puts out as much radiation in 7
years and 5 months as that one fire did at Chernobyl. It is just that coal was
"grandfathered" by tradition and nobody mentions it or measures it.

If the radiation released from a nuclear plant was deuterium or tritium, the
hydrogen goes straight up and leaves the planet earth, never to return. Deuterium
and tritium are "heavy" hydrogen. The earth does not have enough gravity to
hold hydrogen or helium. A release of deuterium or tritium gives you and the
earth zero radiation.

Reference:
OUR NUCLEAR FUTURE:
THE PATH OF SELECTIVE IGNORANCE
by Alex Gabbard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN
Selections from the 19th Annual Conference
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
March 14,15,16, 1996
Nashville, Tennessee

Published by the
SOUTHERN FUTURE SOCIETY
1996
Edited by Jack D. Arters, Ed.D.
Conference Director
The truth is, all natural rocks contain most natural elements. Coal is a rock. The
average concentration of uranium in coal is 1 or 2 parts per million. Illinois coal
contains up to 103 parts per million uranium. A 1000 million watt coal fired
power plant burns 4 million tons of coal each year. If you multiply 4 million tons
by 1 part per million, you get 4 tons of uranium. Most of that is U238. About
.7% is U235. 4 tons = 8000 pounds. 8000 pounds times .7% = 56 pounds of
U235. An average 1 billion watt coal fired power plant puts out 56 to 112 pounds
of U235 every year. There are only 2 places the uranium can go: Up the stack or
into the cinders.
Since a reactor full fuel load is around 11 tons of 2% U235 and 98% U238, and
one load lasts about 10 years, and what one coal fired power plant puts into the air
and cinders fully fuels a nuclear power plant. You can get ALL the uranium you
need for a nuclear plant from the cinders and smoke of a coal fired power plant of
the same size. [If fuel recycling and breeding is allowed, you can get hundreds of
times that.]
Compare 4 Million tons per year with 1.1 tons per year. 1.1 divided by 4 Million
= 2.75 E -7 = .000000275 =.0000275%. Remember that only 2% of that is U235.
The nuclear power plant needs ~44 pounds of U235 per year. The coal fired
power plant burns coal by the trainload. The nuclear power plant consumes U235
in such small quantities yearly that you could carry that much weight in a briefcase.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

32 countries have nuclear power plants.
9 countries have the bomb, counting North Korea.
32-9=23
What's the matter with those 23 countries that have nuclear power
but not the bomb? Are they reneging on their obligation
to proliferate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT EVEN the worst possible nuclear war,
a "general exchange" between the United States and the old Soviet Union could
achieve the extinction of Homo Sapiens. That would mean exploding 40,000 H
bombs all at once in the old days or maybe only 20,000 H bombs now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind power never works on calm days.

There ARE places where the wind blows steadily.
But those places don't happen to be everywhere.
And they don't happen to be in convenient places.
And the wind doesn't blow hard enough for the power required
HERE. [I'm not in Texas.]
Some places may not have as many people who object to any
change, like Senator Kennedy. So just because it works in some
other place that happens to be a special case is no indication that it
will work here. But don't believe me. Go invest YOUR OWN
money in a wind power project and go broke. If you get rich
instead, fine. If T.B. Pickens wants to waste a billion dollars on
wind power, that is fine with me. Put your money where your
mouth is. If you expect other people to invest their money, the
numbers have to work first. Remember that climate has an
impact on whether wind energy will work in a given place.
There just isn't enough wind power in the world and it is too
intermittent to be useable for base load. If you capture all of the
wind power, you will have changed the climate.
The impracticality of wind power may have something to do with
Congress's unwillingness to subsidize it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/?page=5

"Health, hazard, and quality of life near wind power
installations How Close is Too Close?
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD*
March 1, 2005
A nacelle (generator and gearbox) weighing up to 60 tons
atop a 265 ft. metal tower, equipped with 135 ft. blades, is a
significant hazard to people, livestock, buildings, and traffic
within a radius equal to the height of the structure (400 ft)
and beyond. In Germany in 2003, in high storm winds, the
brakes on a wind turbine failed and the blades spun out of
control. A blade struck the tower and the entire nacelle flew
off the tower. The blades and other parts landed as far as
1650 ft (0.31 mile) from the base of the tower (Note that all
turbines discussed in this article are "upwind," three-bladed,
industrial-sized turbines. "Downwind" turbines have not
been built since the 1980's.) Given the date, this turbine
was probably smaller than the ones proposed for current
construction, and thus could not throw pieces as far. This
distance is nearly identical to calculations of ice throw from
turbines with 100 ft blades rotating 20 times per minute
(1680 ft)"

And the above is only the so-called tip of the iceberg. If
interested, just google "dangers of wind turbines" - there's
plenty of sites to choose from to learn about the dangers.
The noise alone is inescapable - like water torture.

I watched the 3 YouTube films, "Voices of Tug Hill", and
it's appalling. Greed has no boundaries, no conscience, no
morals, no standards"

No source of energy is risk free, but the poverty caused
by not having energy is a really big killer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation from several natural radiation
sources: sources in the Earth and from those sources that are incorporated in our
food and water, which are incorporated in our body, and in building materials and
other products that incorporate those radioactive sources; radiation sources from
space (in the form of cosmic rays); and sources in the atmosphere which primarily
come from both the radon gas that is released from the earth's surface and
subsequently decays to radioactive atoms that become attached to airborne dust
and particulates, and the production of radioactive atoms from the bombardment
of atoms in the upper atmosphere by high-energy cosmic rays. Since 1945 it also
comes from low levels of global radioactive contamination due to nuclear testing.

............shortened.............

Natural background radiation

Natural background radiation comes from three primary sources: cosmic radiation,
terrestrial sources, and radon. The worldwide average background dose for a
human being is about 2.4 mSv per year. This exposure is mostly from cosmic
radiation and natural isotopes in the Earth.

Cosmic radiation

The Earth, and all living things on it, are constantly bombarded by radiation from
outside our solar system of positively charged ions from protons to iron nuclei.
This radiation interacts in the atmosphere to create secondary radiation that rains
down, including X-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and
neutrons. The dose from cosmic radiation is largely from muons, neutrons, and
electrons.

The dose rate from cosmic radiation varies in different parts of the world based
largely on the geomagnetic field and altitude.

Terrestrial sources

Radioactive material is found throughout nature. It occurs naturally in the soil,
rocks, water, air, and vegetation. The major radionuclides of concern for terrestrial
radiation are potassium, uranium and thorium. Each of these sources has been
decreasing in activity since the birth of the Earth so that our present dose from
potassium-40 is about 1⁄2 what it would have been at the dawn of life on Earth.
Some of the elements that make up the human body have radioactive isotopes,
such as potassium-40, so there is also a very small amount of internal radiation.

Radon

Radon gas seeps out of uranium-containing soils found across most of the world
and may concentrate in well-sealed homes. It is often the single largest contributor
to an individual's background radiation dose and is certainly the most variable in
the United States. Many areas of the world, including Cornwall and Aberdeenshire
in the United Kingdom have high enough natural radiation levels that nuclear
licensed sites cannot be built there—the sites would already exceed legal radiation
limits before they opened, and the natural topsoil and rock would all have to be
disposed of as low-level nuclear waste.

............shortened.............

The exposure for an average person is about 360 millirems/year, 80 percent of
which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 20 percent results
from exposure to artificial radiation sources, such as medical X-rays and a small
fraction from nuclear weapons tests.

............shortened.............

Reference:
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_1.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do coal fired power plants get ahead of transportation [cars
and other vehicles] in carbon emissions? Gasoline, diesel fuel,
etc. are half hydrogen. For example, octane is C8H18. To figure
out what fraction of the energy is from burning the carbon, you
have to look up the heat of formation of carbon dioxide and the
heat of formation of water. It takes 1 carbon to make one CO2,
but it takes 2 hydrogens to make 1 H2O. You can do the
arithmetic and apportion the energy between the carbon and the
hydrogen. You have to subtract the energy required to break
down the octane into atoms. It is easier to remove the hydrogens
than it is to separate the carbons, so the energy subtracted gets
apportioned too.
Coal is almost pure carbon, except for the URANIUM,
ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel,
Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron,
Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, Calcium,
Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium,
Molybdenum and Zinc that are coal's impurities. Even though
transportation uses more energy, coal fired power plants put more
CO2 into the air. Coal fired electric power plants account for 40% of our CO2 output.

Transportation isn't even the second largest CO2 emitter.
Industrial processes are. The largest CO2 emitter of the industrial
processes is concrete making even though the energy used is less.
The first step in concrete making is heating limestone [calcium
carbonate] to drive off the carbon dioxide to make calcium oxide.
Coal is burned to make the heat, but the limestone is the greater
source of CO2. Other industrial processes include steel making,
metal casting, etc.

The easiest way to make the biggest reduction in CO2 emissions
is to convert all coal fired power plants to nuclear.

My sole source of income is my retirement annuity from the
federal government. I am telling you the above to avoid the
horrific consequences of global warming.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]