Remember last year when I wrote about the fact that, although I really liked both Barack Obama and John McCain, unfortunately neither of them measured up to Energy Party standards? Well, I did, whether you remember it or not:
JOHN McCAIN and Barack Obama are lucky there’s such a thing as Republicans and Democrats in this country, because neither would be able to get the Energy Party nomination.
Well, I wish I’d been wrong, but I was (yet again) right. I can’t help it; it’s like a curse.
Just as the last administration was too focused on “drill, baby, drill” and wanted nothing to do with conservation and little to do with alternative sources, the Obama administration is looking like a typical, old-school, Democratic “no-nukes,” we-can-do-it-all-with-wind-and-solar bunch of ideologues.
At least, I get that impression from this release I got yesterday from Lindsey Graham:
FERC Chairman Says U.S. May Not Need Any More Nuclear or Coal Power PlantsWASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today responded to the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Jon Wellinghoff, who said our nation may not need to construct any new coal or nuclear power plants. Wellinghoff deemed nuclear energy “too expensive” and said he saw no need to build coal or new nuclear power plants to meet future electricity needs.Wellinghoff was named Chairman of FERC, the agency that oversees wholesale electric transactions and interstate electric transmission and gas transportation in the United States, by President Barack Obama on March 19, 2009.Graham said:“I’m afraid if we follow his advice we may be marching into darkness.“To suggest a few sources of alternative energy alone could handle our future energy needs — in place of new nuclear or coal plants — defies reality. I support capitalizing on all of our energy options, including deploying more alternative sources of energy. However, the public is ill-served when someone in such a prominent position suggests alternative energy programs are developed and in such a state that we should abandon our plans to build more plants. How the Chairman of FERC arrived at such a conclusion — and one which really no one else has arrived at – is not reassuring.“I am writing Chairman Wellinghoff and want him to explain to me how America can meet its energy needs and remain competitive in the global economy without new nuclear or coal plants. I hope he was taken out of context because what he has reportedly said is breathtaking.”#####
Marching into darkness, indeed.
For those of you who are not sufficiently indoctrinated, we in the Energy Party believe you have to do EVERYTHING that will make us energy-independent, with the primary strategic goal of freeing us from the whims of some of the world’s worst thugs, and the side benefits of transforming our economy and saving the planet (without being all ideologically anal retentive about it). Yes, drill. Build nuclear plants. Open frickin’ Yucca Mountain. But push like crazy for electric cars (and, eventually, hydrogen). Support public transit, to get people out of their cars (and besides, I love subways, and it’s my party). Support innovation and experimentation. Lower speed limits to 55, and enforce them. And so on and so forth. Read the Manifesto, so I don’t have to repeat myself so much.
But all we ever get out of Washington in EITHER-OR. And neither ideologically limited approach is going to get us where we need to go.
Related Posts
On a related subject I applaud SCE&G’s plant to add reactors at Virgil Sumner. Supposedly architecture for these facilities has increased by quantum leaps since Three Mile Island and this needs to be looked at as a primary power source again. (What state derives the largest portion of its power from nucs? SC!!)
On the other hand, Santee Cooper’s plan for a massive coal fired plant is irresponsible and should be denied regulatory approval. First of all, S-C was formed to get electricity to poor rural areas that private sector utilities were not interested in serving. That time is past. It should be sold to the public sector. Did S-C even consider nuclear?
There was a story recently that some Navy scientists had detected “cold fusion” reactions. Is this for real or the modern day equivalent of alchemy?
Yes, build more nuclear plants.
Coal is never clean, but we can make coal cleaner. Keep using it.
Drill (even though it will make little difference).
Encourage (or force) Detroit to build cars in our national interests. (Smaller, more efficient, electric).
Spare no expense to develop solar and wind. (Think Apollo.)
Do your part as a consumer for the national interests (use less–it helps your wallet as well).
How can anyone be surprised that Obama’s energy policies are detached from reality? He knows nothing about science, energy, economics, climate, manufacturing, or anything else. He said during the campaign he would tax coal-fired generating plants out of existence. His first week in office, he froze spending on nuclear research and the MOX project, which is recycling nuclear weapons into fuel rods for Duke Power.
As a matter of fact, President Bush, in his first budget, proposed increasing funding of solar, wind and other alternative energy sources by 1,000%. The Democrats fought it, because they wanted to keep the issue open, and blame Bush. The press helped spread the lies.
When Cheney convened an Energy Task Force, he invited the Sierra Club and 40 other so-called “environmental groups”. They all refused to attend, then complained that the meetings were secret. Again, the press spread the lies.
It is absurd to “spare no expense” to subsidize unfeasible solar, wind and geothermal efforts. That is a waste of precious money and intellect. The last thing Detroit needs is some government bureaucrats telling them what mileage the fleet should get, much less setting design criteria. Obama is going to bankrupt Detroit, and bump unemployment to 15%. You can bet on the press lying to put the blame on someone else.
I know that the editorial board of the State was opposed to South Carolina taking other state’s nuclear waste. Why should the citizens of Nevada not be extended the same courtesy? I understand that Yucca Mountain is specially engineered and is as close to absolutely safe as modern science can make it and, if it is not safe it is going to effect a lot more than just Nevada. Personally I do not see how we can not use Yucca Mountain. What I cannot quite wrap my mind around is how you can say not in my state but in their state. Generally I am strong believer in state’s rights (despite the very negative connotations that term has acquired) but nuclear disposal seems to be a national problem that should be viewed from a national perspective.
Why has the Obama administration basically halted any progress on Yucca? Is it because of Harry Reid? This is a problem that will not go away, particularly with the revitalization of nuclear power and a solution must be agreed upon. Are there any good arguments against Yucca Mountain?
How can the administration both claim to be “green” and oppose the only viable (that I am aware of) solution to a potentially serious environmental threat?
The irrational Luddites whose secular religion demands the eradication of nuclear power know that they can accomplish that by blocking the safe disposal and recycling of nuclear waste, byproducts and spent fuel.
They know it is too expensive and dangerous for every state and country to store and reprocess its own nuclear byproducts. It makes a lot of sense to have a few fuel production and reprocessing facilities located in a safe location with the necessary expertise. Those places are in the USA.
It is perfectly safe to bury nuclear byproducts in the same mines from which uranium was extracted, or in stable depositories, like Yucca Flats.
It makes a lot of sense for the US to accept the nuclear weapons of the former USSR and rogue regimes, and reprocess the plutonium and other enriched uranium into fuel rods for electrical power generation. South Carolina is the world’s center for that expertise and facilities.
Brad, maybe you should consider getting your information on matters like this from somebody beyond just Lindsay Graham. Actually, the NYT has a pretty balanced report on this in which most experts concur that Wellinghoff’s statements are indeed pretty unrealistic. But Wellinghoff did say “may,” not “will.” It’s also far from clear that the Obama Administration holds a “typical no-nukes” position; as the Times article points out, “Congress created significant financial incentives to encourage the construction of perhaps a half-dozen nuclear plants with innovative designs, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has promised Congress to accelerate awards of federal loan guarantees for some of these proposals.” Hardly sounds like knee-jerk no-nukes-ism to me.
Maybe, Brad, Obama is not toeing your Energy Party platform as closely as you would like; but if you are really, really honest with yourself, you surely would have to admit that the future of rational energy policy (not only for our nation but for the planet) looks a lot more promising since Obama won the election than it would have otherwise.
Obama is a radical socialist, who wants to drag America down.
He pretends to be a moderate, while enabling radicals to have their way
He says he is opposes some radical position, then puts radicals in charge, and says it is out of his hands.
* Seizure of the banks, after Paulsen forced them to take TARP money.
* Seizure of Chryler and GM, then the bankrupting of them, without any serious effort to save them.
* Release of memos on the limits of interrogation of terrorists, saying there would be no looking back, no prosecutions, no investigations, then releasing more documents, photos of unrelated torture that has already been prosecuted, and saying it is out of his control.
* Signing of the Pelosis-Reid Stimulus bill without reading it, much less a “line by line veto” ( a power he does not have). He promises “strict oversight”, but as most of the money is being mispent to no create new jobs, he says it is out of his control.
What has become of RandyE? Haven’t heard from him in days.