Hillary’s Energy Plan: Real Progress

Okay, so I’m bitching about Obama’s pro-nuke ‘n coal energy stance.

In contrast: Here’s the positive, real deal from Hillary. It’s huge, so I’m just highlighting a couple of sections from page 6 of her 15-page “Powering America’s Future” PDF, part of her “Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming” Platform. (phew!)

Producing 25 Percent of Electricity from Wind, Solar, Biomass, Geothermal and Other Renewable Sources by 2025: Wind, solar and other non-hydro renewables accounted for only 2.3 percent of electricity generation in 2005. Hydropower added another 6.6 percent. However, a recent study using Department of Energy models found that getting to 20% renewable electricity by 2020 would save consumers $10.5 billion, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 223 million metric tons per year, spur $66.7 billion in new capital investment and increase income to farmers, ranchers and rural landowners by $25.6 billion. Hillary would establish a national target of producing 25% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2025. In addition to setting this target, Hillary would:
• Encourage investment in wind, solar and other renewable energy production by making permanent the 1.9 cent per kilowatt-hour tax credit for producing electricity from renewable sources;
• Provide tax incentives for families and businesses to install small-scale renewable energy such as rooftop solar panels; and
• Establish national “net metering” standards to ensure that families and businesses who install solar panels or other renewable energy resources can sell power back to the grid on fair terms.

Addressing Nuclear Power: Hillary believes that energy efficiency and renewables are better options for addressing global warming and meeting our future power needs, because of significant unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. Hillary opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but believes that we need to take additional steps to deal with the problems facing nuclear power. She would strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and direct it to improve safety and security at nuclear power plants; terminate work at the flawed Yucca Mountain site and convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety.

All you liberals, believers who think that Obama has YOU and YOUR INTERESTS in mind: Look at the evidence. Look at her concern for Yucca Mountain, revered Native American spiritual site. Read Hillary’s plans for a complete and progressive and exhaustive (no pun intended) energy policy here on her website. Wake up to real progress, America!


7 thoughts on “Hillary’s Energy Plan: Real Progress

  1. Thanks for posting this. I’d thought before that Sen. Clinton was wary of nuclear energy but open minded.

    It sounds more like she’s decided to pander to the environmentalist-lite crowd and pretend that the problem of global warming can be solved with windmills and pure thoughts. Where will the other 75% of the country’s electricity come from?

    It could be possible to minimize global warming without nuclear energy if everyone in the world gave up his house and appliances and car and never took another vacation trip. That is, if food and other consumer goods didn’t have to be shipped.

    Is that the plan?

  2. Red Craig: Like I said, the two paras I posted are part of a huge energy plan that Hillary is proposing. I’m no energy nor political expert, just a concerned citizen — I’ve only read a bit, and it’s pretty daunting and covers many fronts.

    Before commenting here with your opinion that she’s pandering and other slurs, why don’t you read her plans that fill in the rest of the info? Perhaps you could purify your own thoughts before commenting.

    I think that there’s some middle ground between nuclear energy and “everyone in the world” giving up their house, appliances, cars, and vacations. First, most people in the world don’t even have those things. Second, we’d all be consuming foods that nourish us more thoroughly if we supported locally grown and produced foods as well as other goods. Have you ever grown veggies or other food? It loses much of its nutritional value by the time it’s picked/harvested and reaches even a local market, not to mention what it loses by being shipped over thousands of miles, not to mention the energy costs in doing so.

    Regarding cars, appliances, etc. — we in this country of consumerism are way behind Europe and even developing countries in our ideas of what and how much we actually need to have a happy, satisfying, and productive life. We are devoid and divorced from nature, which is the crux of even thinking about any kind of greening to save the planet. How else can we account for the proliferation of HUGE SUVs which get lousy gas mileage, many of which never saw a country road, being manufactured by Detroit, et al American companies, beginning twenty years ago, when it was clear that global warming was in full swing?

  3. Lady, I have looked through it. She has lumped together every bad idea that’s been proposed. “Clean coal” doubles the CO2 emissions of coal-fired plants and makes them absurdly expensive. It only can be an improvement if someone figures out how to capture and store CO2, which no one has demonstrated and (as far as I know) for which no one has even suggested a method that even sounds like it could work. Biofuels not only couldn’t be produced in sufficient quantity because of the land requirements but actually would make the problem worse if they could be.

    Cap-and-trade won’t work because it will always depend on politicians and businessmen deciding on the caps. Anyway, her plan is to auction the pollution rights, which is a tax. Republicans won’t allow it and democrats facing tough challenges won’t vote for it.

    Nope, there isn’t a middle ground. 25% reduction in emissions isn’t nearly enough. The Chinese are adding electrical capacity at a rate that will swamp any reductions Sen. Clinton is proposing. We have to get the Chinese and the Indians to use non-fossil energy sources and it won’t happen if we don’t shift 100% on electricity and 80 or 90% on other applications. To see more about what it takes to go non-fossil, please look at http://gwperplexed.niof.org/challenge.htm.

    Let’s say you and I are willing to give up our cars and appliances and grow our own food and stop taking vacation trips. What do you suppose our neighbors would say if we told them they had to do the same thing because Greenpeace doesn’t approve of nuclear energy and the Kennedy family doesn’t like the way wind farms look? My neighbors would just look at me funny. If it’s that important to cut back on CO2, then why not build nuclear plants? How many people have been harmed in this country by nuclear accidents? Or nuclear energy waste? (Answers: zero and zero). If we’re doing everything practical to reduce emissions and that’s still not enough, then they’ll think about it. If it’s some Sierra Club idea, no.

    Do you really think New Yorkers could grow all their own food? They’re going to dig root cellars and live on turnips all winter, the turnips they grow on their balconies? Think about this a moment and tell me if you really think that’s a practical solution to global warming. If you say yes, no one will ever take you seriously again.

    I don’t think Sen. Clinton understands the magnitude of the challenge. She’s offering gimmicks and bad policies because she doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to tell the voters what it really will take. She’s doesn’t know the truth or else she’s afraid of telling the truth because misinformed voters don’t want to hear it.

  4. Red Craig: I glanced at your website, and your theses and citations are too big of a bite for me. Do you work for the nuclear industry? Which candidate do you think supports your interests?

    Excuse me, but your bias is showing. Energy policy is not my area of expertise, but you’re obviously pro-nuke and biased against Hillary Clinton. Whatever she’s proposing, for me, it’s a less harmful path of destruction. As far as nuclear waste and accidents — can you say, Hershey’s Chocolate, or Chernobyl? Radiation has shown up around the world from this catastrophic Ruski accident, in addition to the local destruction to flora and fauna it caused. Get back to me after the gazillion half-life’s have expired on the already leaking and leaching buried containers of nuclear waste, and I’ll ask the other head that grew on my body if you’re right. I checked your section on possible nuclear harm and you give it a zero not proven status, whereas you back up with heavy data and research the points you believe in.

    Same with citing Kennedy, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club. If those orgs hadn’t done their research, protesting, and info dissemination, we wouldn’t even be talking about global warming right now, because the creationists would still be pushing that it doesn’t even exist. Oh, now even Bush has begun to acknowledge it. Glory be.

    As far as cars, and crops, and stuff: I sold my car to move to a walking city, I barely vacation, and did grow my own food for 15 years, because it’s healthy, good, and cheap. None of the above people or orgs told me to do it; I came to my own conclusions, thank you very much. I never suggested that NYers could do so on their own in the city, but there are lots of farmers who grow crops upstate and in neighboring ones that can be supported before we go to growing turnips on balconies or have to import foods from halfway around the world. Then again, if you live in one of the boroughs, you could plant a victory garden on your lawn. I remember the actor Eddie Albert did so on his front lawn in the seventies, and grew stuff for the next thirty years until his passing. He was a family neighbor who tore up his fancy lawn in the middle of Pacific Palisades and began growing organic veggies, which he shared generously with people up and down the block.

    You seem to go to the extremes to make your point against plans that do the least harm. Small steps can be taken by everyone that will make a difference. Better than doing nothing or being a nukes proponent. Data can be used in many ways; numbers can be manipulated to suit any case. No data will make me support nuclear energy, until it’s proven safe by all standards not just the nuclear industry and its surrogates.

  5. Lady, those are good points, all of them. I’ll answer as well as my limited abilities allow.

    No, I’m way past biased. I’ve looked at this from all sides and the answer only comes out one way.

    I’m not employed in the nuclear industry, but I was a long time ago. I have an interesting perspective because I was in California when an anti-nuclear initiative was being debated. Simultaneously, I was taking environmental-studies classes at a local University. So I got to see both sides of the issue. What I saw was total disregard for the truth on the part of the anti-nukes. Faced with the realities of environmental science, they simply invented “facts” to support their views, knowing that by the time the truth could be established they would be gone, safe from accountability. On the pro-nuke side I saw an insistence on saying only what could be proved. In the end, the initiative failed, not so much because the voters supported nuclear energy, but because the initiative was blatantly dishonest.

    If the debate were about whether or not to build Soviet-style reactors, there’d be no argument. Chernobyl was different from all the other reactors in the world: it was inherently unstable and had essentially no operating safety systems, not even a containment structure. The accident did, however, prove that anti-nukes had vastly overstated the harm such an accident could cause. For all the celebrations by anti-nukes, the disaster, serious as it was, ranked among routine disasters that happen year after year. In comparison, the Three-Mile Island accident had no effects on public safety or public health and validated the safety of western nuclear technology.

    “. . .Gazillion half-life’s have expired on the already leaking and leaching buried containers of nuclear waste. . . .” Please. You’ve got to get better information sources. No doubt this explains how your brain got into the condition it’s in. But I don’t know everything. I could be wrong. Give me an example—just one—of where nuclear energy has ever harmed anyone or anything anywhere in the country.

    Oh, that’s crap. It was scientists, not phony environmentalists, who tried to call attention to global warming. It took celebrities to get people’s attention, not Greenpeace.

    At least you cleared up for me what the deal is about growing our own food or relying on local farmers. You really do think that’s feasible. No more frozen vegetables or oranges or bananas. Just turnips, bacon, and locally-grown grain, something like people did 200 years ago. From now on, when people ask me who would vote for Sen. Clinton I’ll know what to tell them.

    I think the basic problem is that people don’t relate to arithmetic. I showed you what the arithmetic shows, but you just shrugged and said it was all too hard. Better just to believe whatever you want. If someone says something else, then obviously he as some dishonest motive. An honest person would tell you what you want to hear. Of course.

  6. Red Craig: Lookee there, you caught a fish. Lucky you. I do believe what ever I want, thank you very much. Your language shows you’re indeed biased.

    I lived in CA for forty years, and there was lots of scientific evidence to show that a nuclear power plant built over an active earthquake fault was a crappy idea. Common ordinary citizens of the world have known about global warming for many years, just listen to native populations, and what the world’s scientists, including those at Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense, have been researching for years.

    You’re very much about the extremes–only turnips and bacon, growing local means going back 200 years, no tropical fruit, growing food means you can’t freeze it. Really. I have stuff to do in life and don’t want to take my time to look at your nuclear argument, nor be insulted by you on the site I write, and I was nice enough to publish you on. Read the title; that’s what it’s about. Thanks for engaging, but please continue arguing somewhere else. You’ve worn out your welcome by insulting me in every single paragraph you just wrote.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s