« The (True) Wisdom of Crowds
Hi Ho! Hi Ho! It’s off to jail I go! »



An Energy Policy vs. An Energy Vision

August 7th, 2008
By MICHAEL SILVERSTEIN

Print Print

John McCain has taken what seems in this highly energy-conscious election year a prudent view about energy. We have to use all our options, he says. Drill, drill, drill for more oil offshore. Use more clean coal. And yes, develop alternative energy resources if and when this seems possible.

It’s a safe-sounding policy. But that’s all it is. A policy. A way to plod along as we’ve been plodding, and hope that one way or another things will gradually get better.

Barack Obama takes a more radical approach. He is emphasizing alternative energy resources to not only solve our long-term energy problems, but as the best way to meet the short-term ones as well.

It’s an approach favored by many of those who have looked closely at alternative energy resources, and understand they are not just futuristic dreams. Understand that countries such as Denmark and Germany expect to meet 20-30 percent of their total electrical needs with provem windmill technology within 10 years; that countries like Iceland aleady meet all their own electricity needs with proven geothermal technology; that amazing advances in solar technologies are aleady making both solar heating and solar-generated electricity very cost competitive for many applications; and that all such alternative energy resources offer better near-term hopes to help us become energy independent than offshore oil drilling.

This Obama view isn’t just a policy, however. It’s a vision of a new way to do things for a new century, a new millenium, a new world economic order. A way that uses the “live” energy of sun, wind, water and the earth itself to replace the long “dead” and buried energy we have depended on for so many years.

This policy versus vision notion is something for all Americans to consider. But perhaps its most dramatic potential appeal is to Americans of a religious bent.

The Bible doesn’t say that without a policy the people are lost. It says that without a vision the people are lost. Take it from The Guy who knows. Tapping live energy is the right vision for these times. Basing our future on dead and buried energy sources is just another version of being eyeless in Gaza.



This entry was posted on Thursday, August 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am and is filed under Alternative Energy Resources, Oil, Environmental Issues, Nature, Random Reads, Michael Silverstein Poetry, Al Gore, 2008 Elections, Energy, Barack Obama, Evangelicals, Miscellaneous. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 28 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This is one of the most bizarre blog posts I've read in recent memory, particularly since most Obama supporters seem to resent the accusations that they've joined a Messianic cult. Gee, can't imagine why his detractors think that.
    • ^
    • v
    I think "new" alternatives is such a misnomer. BigOil has been actively suppressing their known development since the 1970s and before.

    The hype about them being "weird" "unreachable" "futuristic" or even "silly" is just that...BigOil generated hype aimed at keeping their monopoly and us on their ball and chain $$$$$ at the pumps.

    They use nuclear to scare us back to the pumps. Why are all the BigOil spokesmen open (weirdly) to nuclear? Seems to fly in the face of their monopoly right? Well they know nuclear is scary and tricky to produce (steam driven turbines). So if people don't get scared back to oil, then they'll just invest in big complex and tricky radioactive steam generators to keep competition at bay.

    Our entire energy policy is and has been forged for decades now by a cloistered smallish group of really rich people trying to hang onto that wealth within their families and not to allow that super-rich status to slip away..

    So....

    We know that nuclear is just radiation heating water to steam to run turbines. And the boring and decades-old technology of geothermal steam running turbines instead has been dry-docked. There is nothing to geothermal. It isn't 'new age' or futuristic. It is simple cave-man technology:

    Og put pipe in ground. Og pump in water onto hot rocks and boiling reservoirs. Og put 'nuther pipe coming out going to spinny thing with magnet and copper windings. Spinny thing make ouch-zap go through wire to grid...

    It's so easy, a caveman could do it.. And that's BigOil's problem with it..

    lol...

    However, nuclear, coal and oil ARE last Century in that they are filthy, dangerous and costly....COSTLY ways of generating steam that already exists for us to go pluck and harvest without peril.
    • ^
    • v
    Sil, this isn't a Geico commercial. Where pray-tell is enough geo-thermal steam vents to replace our use of fossil fuels?

    We do need to have long term vision to get off of fossil fuels with short & medium terms goals to get there. Being clean is good where we can but we need to be realistic that we're a long way from a zero-pollution society.

    Short-Medium term:
    - Nuclear fission
    - Clean coal
    - Bio-fuels
    - Deploy wind & solar collectors.
    - Give tax incentives to home owners

    LONG TERM
    - Fusion
    - Solar & Wind farms
    - Geo thermal where approach
    - Bio-fuels
    • ^
    • v
    The entire western half of the lower 48 is riddled with surface or near-surface steam and hot rock for injection wells.

    Nuclear is dangerous and will face untold amounts of litigation. There are groups mobilizing as we speak to oppose the construction of plants in their backyards.

    Clean coal is a misnomer. There is no such thing. The label is there because it sounds good. Bio-fuels will deplete food acreage in a time when global populations are swelling beyond our ability to feed them. If you think the conflict in Iraq is a problem, just wait until starvation becomes the impetus to start wars..

    Wind and solar are good ideas, especially when wind is implemented in areas where there is a steady breeze, but not high gusts. Solar is fabulous and we have zillions of sun-baked acres, again in the western half of the lower 48 just sitting vacant and empty...usually and often right next to geothermal resources, just begging to be tapped.

    Fusion....yeah, that's still off in the future. And why even bother when we have steam from the earth to run a million power plants?

    We have had the knowledge of how to put a pipe in the ground and one coming out for some time now. Why we aren't doing so is a matter of pure politics and nothing else.
    • ^
    • v
    CStanley,
    That is kind of funny, but I agree with the underlying premise that Obama offers a more forward thinking vision than McCain. McCain's rhetoric focuses almost exclusively on drilling and nuclear power as a bludgeon to attack Obama, who has never been categorically opposed to either. But new drilling won't have much effect on the global supply of oil, while nuclear seems less than ideal given the necessary government subsidies and waste management problems.

    Shouldn't the supposed greatest country on earth aim high?
    • ^
    • v
    I like a good portion of Obama’s policy, except for his opposition to nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean power, except for the spent fuel rods. That is a problem, but I see it as the only real problem. People will say nuclear power is dangerous, but in fact, it is safe; saying it is dangerous and reminding us of Chernobyl are good ways to kick up opposition, and keep us dependent on oil and coal. You want clean (hell of a lot cleaner than coal) energy that will provide enough energy to meet demand? Nuclear is a great option right now. Sure wind, solar, and other sources like those are important, but they will not provide enough energy to power the quickly growing demand.
    • ^
    • v
    Well once again short term, long term does not address transportation which is what all the fuss is about.

    Once again as with every post about energy the left/democrats trying to defend a Clueless Barak Obama tell us we need more Coal, wind, solar, tax incentives and Bio Fuels.

    YOU cannot grow your fuel. Well you can but then you have to import your food.

    Barak Obama is as Clueless about energy as is those who would support him.

    Oil is NOT replaceable by anything in the short term or even the intermediate term. Period.

    One can only conclude that Barak Obama, Nanny Pelosi and crowd are simply liars. You cannot wind farm your way out of high gasoline prices.

    But if you say it loud enough, long enough then it will become the truth.

    Obama Lied and Drilling Died.

    Thats okay.....another government run program is coming to a gas station near you. The only problem is they want to give the poor a tax credit and usually its the freakin POOR who DO NOT EVEN OWN CARS.

    Gotta love socialism.
    • ^
    • v
    More like:

    Energy Policy vs Energy Fantasy

    We should acknowledge that different groups do different things better than each other. Conservatives are demonstrably better at military, foreign affairs, economics, domestic policy and energy.

    Liberals are far superior at poetry and interpretive dance.

    Let’s keep to our own side of the street and we’ll all get along just fine.
    • ^
    • v
    CStanley, it sounds like you're not buying the "it's not just futuristic dreams" argument. It sounds like you believe anyone who thinks that must be a member of some "messianic cult". So let me ask you, on what basis do you believe that? Is it that you don't believe it’s an approach favored by many of those who have looked closely at alternative energy resources? If so, why not? I mean, all you have to do is look at the data...

    * Wind power accounted for 35% of all new power sources in the US in 2007.
    * Worldwide over $165 billion was invested in renewable energy in 2007.
    * The DOE's NREL division estimates that it would cost the average homeowner about 50 cents a month over current prices to convert 20% of the national grid to wind power. If that is done the price is essentially locked in, because wind is free. Every indication is that doing the same thing with nuclear (which is what McCain is suggesting) would be much more expensive.
    * There are currently about 150 applications for utility scale solar plants in the US alone.
    * Nevada is planning to expand its geothermal resources to account for over 70% of its electrical power over the next 5-7 years.
    * Virtually every major vehicle manufacturer is working full tilt to offer plug-in hybrids within 2-3 years. Some, such as Nissan, are planning to introduce fully electric vehicles in the same time frame. And of course there are smaller start-ups planning the same thing.
    * Even big rig manufacturers (e.g. Peterbilt, Mitsubishi, Kenworth) are beginning to offer hybrids).
    * The McKinsey Group and others have estimated that as much as 20-25% of domestic energy demand could be eliminated by energy efficiency technologies (e.g., grid leveling, changes in building standards, industrial and utility heat recovery, retrofitting existing buildings) -- technologies which would be net economic positives over their useful lifetimes.

    I could go on, but I think you get the idea. This isn't a fantasy. The time is now. There's a HUGE amount of money to be made in this stuff, and the necessary investment is relatively small. All they need is a little help. Obama is talking about investing about $15 billion/year over a decade developing all sorts of renewables and energy efficiency technologies. That sounds about right to me. To the extent that the US occupies a leading role there are millions of domestic jobs at stake. Manufacturing opportunities. Intellectual capital to accumulate. And a serious reduction in the trade deficit. This is supposed to be the kind of thing America does best. In the 20th century it was large increases in manufacuring efficiency (assembly lines, etc.), by large increases in agricultural efficiencies (e.g., mechanizing farms, development of higher yield crops), by large increases in transportation efficiencies (e.g., the expansion of railroads and interstate highways), by large increases in information efficiencies (e.g., computers, communications satellites, the internet). All through that energy efficiency was largely ignored. Now it's time to concentrate on that. That is now the biggest, lowest hanging fruit available to increase production efficiency. And increasing production efficiency is how you boost GDP.

    So what is it exactly that you don't understand?