Before I begin a discussion of the two candidate’s energy policy I feel it’s pretty important to briefly summarize our nation’s current energy paradigm.
We are a nation of coal and petroleum. Coal is our largest natural energy resource and we mine it and burn it like no tomorrow. This is mostly because it is part of the ‘primary’ energy sources (coal, nuclear, gas, petroleum (Petroleum is refined crude oil)). Coal, however, emits tons of CO2, NOX’s, sulfur, radiation, and tons of other particulate matter. Therefore, although it is the cheapest(to mine and burn), it is cheap because the actual costs (health costs, environmental costs) are not being paid for by the coal plant but instead the surrounding public, of all countries. Therefore, since a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme is inevitable at this point to curb global warming we are at a turning point in our energy policy. With a carbon tax, nuclear will probably be the cheapest way to electrify our grid, followed by natural gas (Our second most plentiful energy reserve). Another option is to work on technology to pump all the pollution from coal plants back into the ground, where it came from. Of course, this is obscenely expensive.
Not to forget, but secondary energy sources are also an important part of our electrical grid. Although they cannot possibly support the grid by itself, they serve the purpose of lowering electricity costs and preventing brownouts – as well as lessening the need for hugely expensive (capital and/or environmentally wise) primary power plants. Secondary power sources include, but is not limited too, solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal. Those four are pretty much the only foreseeable answers as clean, secondary energy sources – and they have at least a decade to go before even being effective on a national level.
And, of course, last but most certainly not least, we have our ‘energy storers’ that power things that can’t feasibly be plugged into the grid. These include our cars, phones, laptops, and many other things. Right now, for cost competitiveness, we have batteries, ethanol, and petroleum/diesel. Hydrogen is really more of a complex battery and is not particularly feasible at this juncture in time.
As you can see from the graph, the world uses 85 to 90 million barrels of oil per day. Ethanol alone cannot possibly match this demand. In fact, oil can no longer match this demand as you see from the narrowing between the ‘global output’ and ‘capacity to produce’.
Now, with those lessons out of the way, where do the candidates stand? Parenthesis are my comments
Push non-corn ethanol
Switch from AC to digital (Which should solve a lot of brownouts and lower energy costs, as well as make many other incentives to curb energy use possible that aren’t possible now)
fuel economy standards (assuming you get taxed if your car doesn’t meet them, as opposed to banning cars that do not meet them)
Give money/stricter building standards for energy efficiency
$150 billion dollars over 10 y ears to the cause of alternative energy
Grants and more funding for research into alternative energy/renewable resources
Obama Cons:
Perhaps too much money spent on clean coal
Focuses too much on corn ethanol still
‘nuclear-agnostic’ (if that means anything but ‘build more nuclear power plants’ he is simply wrong.)Windfall profits tax (What the fuck?)
McCain Pros:
45 new nuclear power plants! (Like this is even possible, but regardless, pushing nuclear is the way to go)
Embraces ethanol while shunning corn ethanol(The worst kind of ethanol in every respect)
McCain Cons:
Find more oil (Good luck?)
Drill more oil (completely ineffective)
$300 million dollar prize for ‘best battery’ (300 million is like 3 cents if a company actually invented a battery that blows our current ones away)
tax-credit for people who purchase 0 emission cars. (I, for one, look forward to building my own with a few hundred dollars and collecting the 5,000 tax credit. What is a car after all but 4 wheels to make you places)
So Obama offers real solutions, which are tough and will take time, but doesn’t fully embrace some areas where he should. McCain offers nuclear power plants and a bunch of gimmicks that will do nothing. 1-0 Obama, although the sad thing is his position on nuclear power almost makes McCain’s energy policy (i.e. just nuclear, he has no serious plan) better
Hiptics.com is updated every single day with your kind of hip hop:
- Barack Obama, John McCain’s Son Embrace at Naval Academy Graduation
- Ludacris Appologizes To John McCain Over Song
- Eminem Voted For John McCain?
how is the battery contest a bad idea? That gives the hundreds of thousands of small inventors huge incentive to create this battery. Besides we need more oil. If you expect we will invent a alternative source of energy overnight than you are an idiot. Almost everything in the world runs off oil
Like I said, 300 million means nothing to a company who could theoretically create the type of battery McCain wants. It would literally make hundreds of billions of dollars.
Investors will not be swayed by 300 million with the potential of hundreds of billions on the line. Many, many, many companies and researchers are currently working on this and this theoretical prize will not make anyone new come to the table.
“If you expect we will invent a alternative source of energy overnight than you are an idiot”
I’m talking in the time frame of a decade. Interestingly enough, the same time frame it would take for McCain’s oil drilling plans to come to fruition.
“Almost everything in the world runs off oil”
Well no, that is incorrect. Although oil has many uses especially in industry and transportation, substitutions exist for almost every use. The problem arises in making those substitutions cost competitive with oil. Obama’s plan addresses this, McCain’s does not.
Ohhhh shit – you got owned you pilot faggot!
if i could die early i would ask God if i could be your guardian angel, so i could wrap my wings around you and embraces you whenever you feel alone…