Al Gore recently made a speech calling for an energy makeover for the U.S., claiming that within 10 years, we can go to 100 percent renewable electricity. About 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity production. While I’m glad that someone has finally asked this country to get some courage regarding climate change, I’m highly skeptical of the political will for this to actually happen.
Let’s start with our presidential candidates. John McCain’s biggest electricity option seems to be nuclear power. His plan sets a goal of 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and an eventual goal of 100 plants, funded in large part by permanent government tax credits. What McCain fails to realize is that there is no market for nuclear power.
No bank will touch it without nearly $20 billion in loan guarantees from the federal government for new reactors, as was put in the 2007 energy bill. Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal reports that estimates for the cost of nuclear reactors have increased 50 percent in the last year alone. Energy guru Amory Lovins, a speaker at UCSB’s 2007 Emerging Energy Technologies Summit, says that at this point, nuclear would cost about three times as much as wind power. And keep in mind that we don’t have to store “leftover wind” underground in mountains for 250,000 years, hoping an earthquake won’t jar it open sometime during that period, whereas that is a concern for the 54,000 metric tons of nuclear waste we presently have to deal with. Do you really want more of that? Do you want your tax dollars to pay for the profits on such an enterprise?
Ben Ciccati
Okay, so you might be thinking, “Well, I’m voting for Barack Obama. He’ll help with global warming.” Although Obama offers better prospects regarding climate change, he’s still reaching for the wrong solutions. Most notable is his love for “clean coal.” True, Obama has said he will double research and development for wind and solar — technologies that are already available and getting cheaper. For example, the Department of Energy estimates that it can make solar cost-competitive with coal by 2015. Furthermore, Nanosolar, a solar startup, has already shipped its thin-film technology at costs that are competitive with dirty coal.
Meanwhile, Obama will “consider whatever policy tools are necessary” to commercialize clean coal. Perhaps he isn’t aware that the New York Times recently reported that “it would take as long as 15 years [that is, until 2023] to go from starting a pilot plant to proving the technology will work.” In addition, let’s not forget how expensive clean coal will be compared to dirty coal. Obama also told the Illinois state senate in 2001, “I am a strong supporter … of downstate coal interests.” Maybe Obama’s position has something to do with the fact that he’s gotten about $539,597 in campaign contributions from the coal and electric utility interests.
Let’s see. Solar and wind are already-viable technologies that, with small government subsidies, could compete with the dirty technologies posing a threat to our climate and economy — while large subsidies to wind and solar could get us to Gore’s goal. At the same time, our two presidential hopefuls want to invest in technologies that are either (a) ridiculously expensive and dangerous, or (b) far from technologically feasible, let alone cost-effective.
Sorry Mr. Gore, although we had the will to get to the moon, the U.S. apparently lacks the drive to tackle climate change. Let’s thank our lobbyists and the dirty industries that put them in Washington for that, along with the corporate candidates they fund.
The only presidential candidate I see with the gusto to tackle climate change is Ralph Nader. On his Web site, he states that he wants to end subsidies to oil, nuclear, and coal interests and “invest heavily” in solar and wind, as well as energy efficiency (the easiest part of the solution). Of course, Nader is usually considered a nonviable third-party candidate and probably won’t be admitted into the presidential debates.
Meanwhile, on the California ballot in November, Proposition 7, a plan to require 50 percent of our electricity from renewables by 2025, has serious flaws despite its appeal. It doesn’t provide incentives for decentralized rooftop solar. Instead, it encourages overdevelopment in the deserts while our roofs remain open space.
Quentin Gee is a UCSB graduate student in philosophy and former cochair of the university’s Environmental Affairs Board.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Have the oil and coal companies ever been offered tax cuts, for investing and developing alternative power sources? Not only would they get the tax savings, but they would be the owners of the surviving technology and output. So, instead of "Big Oil" and "Big Coal", they could be "Big Solar" and "Big Wind".
equus_posteriori (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Only when the voters get behind this will real change happen.
Ralph Nadar has good ideas but how can he implement his ideas when people won't vote for him?
Also, equus raised a good question.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Nuclear costs 3 times as much as wind"
Nuclear would be cause 100% fewer instances of bird pate' than windmills. Plus comparisons between nuclear and (fill in the "green" power source of your choice) are usually flawed because they never seem to factor in acreage or infrastructure. With the type of solar cells available today we could produce all the electricity we needed with a solar "farm" 300 km by 300km. Now go find someone with a piece of land 90000 km2 available that's also flat, convenient to hooking into the grid, and w/housing for the 20000 or so workers required to build and maintain the system. Oh, and check the price of steel and concrete needed to build the thousands of towers needed to hold the solar arrays. Did I mention we can't physically produce that much solar cell paneling in less than 20-30 years? Or that electrical demand in the US is expected to increase 30%-50% over the same time period? And we're only talking about replacing all the nasty ol' fossil fuel, and nuclear power plants; we're not talking about replacing the energy we consume in our cars, too.
Green power is great. We need more of it. But it's not going to be enough, soon enough. Currently the world consumes a smidgen over 1 cubic mile of oil per year. By the year 2100 demand for oil will grow to about 2.5 cubic miles worth annually. That's the absolute minimum requirement unless you plan on telling the 3rd World to live in grass huts and drown half their babies at birth (I'm only exaggerating a little bit for dramatic effect). To meet that requirement we're going to have to develop every energy source possible - solar, wind, bio, "clean" fossil, and yes even nuclear, and at a pretty good clip.
"We have to store radioactive waste for 250,000 years!"
Not really. They manage it in Europe by reprocessing the fuel and the final "ash" that goes in the caves is only about 5 tons a year last I heard. We don't reprocess here but if we did Yucca would become a mine instead of a repository. Whatever you finally wind up with that can't be reused if you bury it deep enough you can't tell its emissions from the ambient background - Earth's mantle is "hot". We don't glow in the dark because the heavy transuranics tend to sink beneath the lighter elements at the top of the periodic table. In plainer English it's not the problem critics make it out to be.
OrionCA (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Properly sited wind turbines kill less than one bird per turbine per year with today's technology. That's fewer than your cat. Nuclear plants take a minimum of eight years to come on line. At best solar and wind can only penetrate the grid by about 30 to 40%, realistically only 25% due to the vagaries of nature and our reluctance to accommodate it.
Clean coal is a farce - the technology and plants are at least thirty years off and still unproven.
What we need is to start massive conservation campaigns. Conserving is a win win, since wasted energy does nothing but force the utilities to build more coal plants.
tegrat (anonymous profile)
August 27, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All you people that want to conserve, recycle your car, tear down your house and live under the stars, recycle your computer.
This is the #1 nation in the world and why you looney marxist want to ruin it is beyond me.
We need to drill, drill, drill and go nuke. This whacked out belief in man made global warming is a joke. It has no basis in fact, it is a religion. With Algore who has made over 100 million dollars off the stupidity of the leftist American haters in the last few years is laughing all the way to the bank.
Have any you seen pictures of ANWAR? It is frozen desert. Have any of you seen a wind farm? Ugly and noisy and solar isnt up to par yet.
Russia and China are drilling in the gulf, so why arent we all dead yet?
If we had drilled by in the 70's like we should have we would be paying 2+ a gallon instead of the 4.5+ we are now.
You know what Im done with you ignorant marxist, why dont you just go live a 3rd world country and leave America alone. You have done enough damage but if you leave now we capitalists can still save it. May God have mercy on your souls-if you have one.
Cuda (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment