In a gentler era, the word "Keystone" summoned up images of a dozen or so portly and inept cops blundering their way through Max Sennett comedies. Today, Keystone means the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline which, if built, would carry crude oil from Canadian "tar sands" to the Gulf Coast. Sparring about Keystone is what passes for an energy debate this election season. Throw in a little snark about the Obama administration's failed solar energy investment, Solyndra, along with some back-and-forth on abolishing the EPA and that's about it.
No wonder so many voters are confused and frustrated by political campaigns. The daily life of every single American and the health of our entire economy depend on whether we have enough reliable, affordable, and environmentally safe energy. But the political debate on the subject is overwhelmingly evasive, manipulative, piecemeal, and, unless you're a full-fledged energy wonk, nearly impossible to decipher.
That's where "The Question Project" comes in. We have some questions on energy -- basic, fundamental ones -- that we believe people running for office should answer clearly and directly. In this instance, voters deserve to know much more about exactly how President Obama and Governor Romney aim to meet and insure the country's energy needs now and in the future. Candidates for Congress and governor should be answering these questions as well.
So here's what we'd like to know:
- President Obama and Governor Romney, demand for energy worldwide is expected to jump by a third between now and 2035, mainly due to population growth and booming economies in countries like China, India and the rest of the developing world. There's much more competition -- and rising prices -- for the Earth's limited supplies of petroleum and natural gas. What should the U.S. do to prepare for this?
- Should we put our efforts into increasing our supply of energy or reducing our use of it?
- What kind of cars do you envision Americans driving? Are we sticking with oil? If so, the Energy Department predicts oil prices are going to stay volatile for the next 20 years. Or do you want to encourage a shift to alternatives like natural gas or electricity? If so, should the government play a role here, or should it be left to the private sector?
- President Obama, you had put addressing global warming as one of your major first-term goals, saying "we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe." But you haven't been very successful in getting Congress to pass legislation aimed at the problem. What would you do differently in a second administration?
- Governor Romney, you've said that you agree that the Earth is getting hotter, but that you're not fully satisfied that we understand why. You've also said we shouldn't "spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to." Then what should we do? Does that mean we should accept climate change as inevitable and take steps to prepare for its side effects--crop failures, flooding and the spread of disease, for example?
- There's really only a short list of fuels we use to produce electricity, and all of them have serious drawbacks. Coal emits the most global warming gases. Natural gas is cleaner, but having ample supplies of it depends on using controversial techniques like fracking. Nuclear power doesn't contribute to global warming at all, but it comes with other safety risks, and we still haven't solved the problem of how and where to store nuclear waste. Alternatives like wind and solar don't have these same risks, but they are considerably more expensive, and right now, they only provide only a sliver of our energy. Where should we place our bets? Should government try to encourage some of these sources, and discourage others? Or should we leave this completely to the private sector?
- And as a follow-up to that, what do those choices mean for jobs? If we're moving off fossil fuels like coal, then how do we help coal miners transition to new work? If we're going to invest in so-called "green jobs," what has to happen to make that more than a slogan?
If you sense a theme to our questions, you're on the mark. The best projections show that the United States needs both more energy and cleaner energy. We believe the nation needs to make specific plans to insure more diverse and dependable energy sources in the face of growing world demand and pervasive scientific concern about global warming. Changes like these can't be made overnight. It takes decades to develop new sources of energy, and we'll live with decisions we make -- or don't make -- now for a very long time.
This is a massive challenge and leaving it unaddressed could undermine our economy and directly affect our daily lives, and voters need to understand how the candidates think about the nation's choices. Yet, we heard almost nothing about this broader energy challenge in the campaigns. Most candidates and elected officials seem obsessed with near-term specifics, if they're focused on energy issues at all.
But we take a huge risk by putting energy issues on the back burner. If we don't lift up our eyes and look to the future, we're going to be caught up short.
Follow Scott Bittle on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/sbittle
Operation Sustainability: U.S. Military Sets Ambitious Environmental Goals | Renewable Energy News Article
The Obama administration has established a plan to pre qualify areas that can be used for renewable energy with the goal of identifying the least environmental impacts, the availability of grid connections, and other important considerations that will speed the approval of new renewable energy installation. Obama has called for reductions in subsidies to dirty power, while increasing funds for renewable energy. At the same time, oil and gas development is at higher levels than it has been for decades. U.S. Now an Oil Exporter
But what have the GOP done during this time? They have pandered to invested interests in nuclear, coal and oil, while attacking clean energy programs. At Gas Prices Oversight Hearing, House Republicans Push Big Oil Agenda
voted 125 times to reverse, slow or simply defund environmental and renewable energy initiatives
GOP members go so far as to call for the abolition of the EPA, and have introduced many bills to gut the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Republicans try to force the military to use dirty energy it doesn’t want | Grist
Today, ALEC Brings Lawmakers And Big Oil Together To Undermine Clean Energy | ThinkProgress
You have people completely ignorant of basic science with the stupidity to think they have the 'right' to have an opinion. And then they have the cojones to believe it should become policy.
Which is why events such as Range and Solyndra and LG and .... happen. Not once, but again, and again. Why, just because I believe in pink unicorns, we should be able to legislate that!
I would like to formulate a challenge:
Let no one post until they can answer the following questions:
a). What is the energy density of sunlight at your location. Then, what is the usable derivable energy derivable from such a source.
b). What is the usual duty cycle of windstations. What is the cost per mile of transmission?
c). What percentage of our oil do we get from Iraq/Iran (now, and a year ago, 10 years ago).
d). When was the last nuclear plant commissioned?
e). Why does the DOE pad the $/MW of the various power sources? (Go look it up, its in the footnotes).
f). Why are permitting delays much more deleterious for nuclear power than natural gas?
g). How many gallons of gas does it take to generate enough energy to power an IPhone for a day?
h). How much energy does the average American consume.
Cmon people. I get that you're concerned. But until you get off your butts get educated why should your opinion count more than a lemming?
Reduce
recycle
reuse
Add sustainable sources.
That's an all of the above I could vote for.
The candidates will try to out-wimp each other on this issue.
The truth is, we have more oil and gas in the US than the middle east. And Canada is close behind.
Let's use it to grow the economy and raise our standard of living.
We should develop other forms of energy when they become economic, not before.
At current consumption rates we have over 100 years of oil and gas in the US. It is too soon to be hitting the panic button.
so
nat gas filling stations, starting with the big rigs
stop using nat gas for power as may be the only alternative to petrol down the track
go nuclear for base load, coal is ok for now but it cant go on
a/c is a major problem. so much load for so few hours - variable rate meters
stop power stealing - it still seems rampant yet u would think a no brainer to enforce?
Busting the carbon and cost myths of Germany's nuclear exit | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk
The cost of new nuclear power is higher than most other systems, and the risks of damages are only surpassed by the use of coal. The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up | Union of Concerned Scientists
The Dangers of Low Dose Radiation 低濃度放射線の危険 :: JapanFocus
Fail.
Get real.
Do you really think Obama is going to buy a volt when he leaves office next year!?
If it were easier and cheaper to use electricity we would not need government mandates to force us to waste money on it.
Seriously, there is nothing sinister here. It is all very simple!
The statement is simple and concise: WE want to own our own clean energy generation, sited within the built environment. We want a rapid implementation of proven solutions like PACE loans and generous feed in tariffs for rooftop solar and microwind systems
anyhow, the point is made - we know what we want - democratic rooftop solar fairly compensated by feed in tariffs, efficiency increases and PACE loans. we are not interested in any more Big Energy anything. Nothing, including greenwashed wilderness-killing Big Solar and Big Wind. Big Energy is the problem and will never be the solution.
Local Ownership Doubles Economic Value of Wind | john-farrell-ilsr
power the entire U.S. with rooftop solar by 2026
we are WAY behind and the time for questions is over - the time for answers is now!