The Divide

Stephen Power runs down McCain and Obama on energy. In a first-for-me, I think I'm just going to steal the remarks of the guy who's Google Reader Shared Items feed directed me to the story:

Good comparison of McCain and Obama on energy policy. Although McCain is concerned about the environment, he doesn't plan to do much about it - except for support subsidies for nuclear energy. Except for that he opposes subsidies for renewable energy because it's a market distortion. Inconsistent much?

That's good analysis. And I hate to see good analysis in people's Shared Items feed. Write that stuff up as blog posts!

Comments

What's the excuse for supporting the candidate who favors ethnanol? I'm forgetting why we want to subsidize ethanol and starve poor people, but I know there must be a good reason for it.

As far as McCain and the question of consistency: McCain has said he wants the federal government to assist in resolving the spent fuel issue, and sees a federal role in protecting nuclear plants. That's a far cry from the sort of subsidies that Obama favors for favored industries.

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 3:09 PM

While Nuclear Power is part of the mix of solutions for the future, I always want to tear my hair out when people think we could reduce our dependence on oil if we would just have the will to build more reactors. Oil and nuclear are used for two different things. Unless we get legitimate and large numbers of electric vehicles within a few years, it won't do use any good.

The controversy over letting the market work on its own and providing subsidies seems remarkably similar to the health care debate. Yeah, it would be nice if the market worked it all out. But it hasn't done anything for decades. Why is it all of a sudden going to happen without help?

Posted by lfv | June 10, 2008 3:10 PM

lfv, because of the cap-and-trade regime that McCain and Obama both support?

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 3:21 PM

This rundown of the differences between Obama and McCain on energy policy fails to note that Obama has stated support for expanding Amtrak, while McCain has vowed to shut it down.

You really needn't look further than that to see that McCain isn't thinking seriously about these issues.

Posted by rufustfyrfly | June 10, 2008 3:27 PM

I'm forgetting why we want to subsidize ethanol and starve poor people,

Considering there are a number of reasons to be against ethanol, I find it telling that you picked this one. Not that you're trying to be disingenuous, you just don't know any better.

Amusing how you don't consider dealing with spent fuel and federal protection for nuclear facilities as subsidies for favored industries.

Posted by Rambuncle | June 10, 2008 3:42 PM

"And I hate to see good analysis in people's Shared Items feed. Write that stuff up as blog posts!"

But most of us don't have blogs! Or if we do, nobody reads them. But, if we have friends who use Google Reader, they'll actually see what we think.

Also, John McCain is a stupid-head.

Posted by jkd | June 10, 2008 3:51 PM

I do think it's possible that a federal solution to the spent fuel issue should be seen as a subsidiy (though it would be possible to pass some cost on to the nuclear power producers, the coordination would have a value that is difficult to monetize). I think the question of protection from terror threats is a different sort of question. I mean, the federal government protects my home and business from terror threats, so treating nuclear power plants just like me isn't any different. But obviously there is a difference in the risk faced, and in the current costs faced.

I await education from you on the merits and demerits of ethanol, and why we should support the ethanol candidate.

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 3:53 PM

Thomas,

I'll start by stating the obvious. Ethanol gets airtime because Iowa is the early caucus state, and anything that drives corn prices is important to Iowa. Nationally, Ethanol is a losing proposition, because the consumes more energy than it provides.

If I artificially limit myself to just that issue, I support Obama (the "ethanol candidate") over McCain (the "nuclear candidate") because he shows the proper intent. His willingness to look at various alternative fuels and energy sources will be more likely to save our bacon than someone who merely looks at and rejects an early alt fuel attempt, and whos only "alternative" is crank up an expensive nuclear power infrastructure.

Posted by cmholm | June 10, 2008 4:13 PM

If coal is verboten, you need to come up with something else to replace it as a fuel source for generating electricity. That alternative needs to be in place before you cease using coal.

So maybe because nuclear energy actually works right now and can provide the amount of power we need on a consistent basis, it makes sense that if we subsidize, that is where the subsidies should go. Nobody ever went hungry because we diverted uranium to produce electricity. Why would we use farmland to prduce subsidized crops to burn when better alternatives exist?

Perhaps that is a reason to favor nuclear as a better short term part of the solution over wind, solar and corn/sugar biofuel or biomass.

Ramp up electric power thru nukes, guarantee enough supply to support millions of electric cars, threby creating incentives for the market to produce a reliable alternative to a gasoline powered car.

Then we can end our contribution to the empowerment of sheiks from Shitholeistan whose only contribution to the world results from the historical accident of sitting on top of accessible crude oil that the west figured out how to convert into a cheap energy supply.

Posted by Beer Here | June 10, 2008 4:20 PM

Is: "because the consumes more energy than it provides. "

S/b: "because the production process consumes more energy than it provides. "

Posted by cmholm | June 10, 2008 4:20 PM

cm, I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic in Obama's approach. What's the purpose of the cap-and-trade--which both candidates favor--if he's going to include subsidies for ethanol on top of it? And what's the relevant proper intent here? To win the Iowa caucus? To win Iowa in November? I mean, do you think that Obama is an idiot? Why does doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons count as a good thing?

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 4:24 PM

lfv, because of the cap-and-trade regime that McCain and Obama both support?

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 3:21 PM

Yes, but I was just griping about a common refrain I hear with regards to oil use and nukes.

Thomas,

I'll start by stating the obvious. Ethanol gets airtime because Iowa is the early caucus state, and anything that drives corn prices is important to Iowa. Nationally, Ethanol is a losing proposition, because the consumes more energy than it provides.

Posted by cmholm | June 10, 2008 4:13 PM

AFAIK, corn ethanol is neutral or slightly positive in total energy. While it has become extremely popular for people to poo-poo it because of this, it is a mistake to assume that this makes it a loser for the US. Much of the energy consumed producing ethanol can be produced by non-oil sources during the actual conversion of plants-to-ethanol. This can come from nuclear, coal, solar, wind... whatever you want. In this way, we can think of ethanol as an energy storage system (or exotic battery) in the same way hydrogen would be if we were going to use fuel cell vehicles. It would basically allow us to convert electricity into transportation. While it would be nice to have real batteries that were feasible, those are a bit off into the future and may never actually happen. And the cost of going to flex fuel is something like $50 per car, as opposed to the thousands for a plug in hybrid. Ethanol got too hyped initially, but now there's been overcompensation and it gets dumped on too much.

Posted by lfv | June 10, 2008 4:24 PM

Speaking of energy:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/10/14934/0171/483/533436

New de facto gasoline tax?

Posted by Swan | June 10, 2008 4:43 PM

We've got to go nuclear to keep us going after the oil runs out until we can develop and build a broad alternative energy infrastructure- stuff like windmills and solar power cells everywhere- to (in turn) keep us powered until we have some kind of an energy breakthrough.

This is all going to take place across a period of time that is on the scale of generations, but we've basically got to do it to avoid a Mad Max-like degradation of our civilization. We're already going to head far enough in that direction for anyone's tastes when the oil runs out, even if we do build enough nuclear power generators and electric-powered vehicles in time.

Posted by Swan | June 10, 2008 4:50 PM

I don't think nuclear power makes a good "transitional" energy source. It's capital intensive, and once you've installed enough capacity to cover the "transition", there will be a strong constituency built up to make it the "end product."

Posted by cmholm | June 10, 2008 5:28 PM

lfv - I always want to tear my hair out when people think we could reduce our dependence on oil if we would just have the will to build more reactors. Oil and nuclear are used for two different things. Unless we get legitimate and large numbers of electric vehicles within a few years, it won't do use any good.

Funny, that is what any engineer not making money selling "exciting alternative energy solutions" thinks about solar, wind, and all the chickenshit stuff like "tidal power".

The difference is that a KW-hr of wind and backup gen equipment when wind is not available is 18 times the cost of nuclear-generated electricity without taxpayer subsidies or laws forcing utilities to take windpower and spread it's cost to all ratepayers adding on to the price they would pay for coal, nat gas, hydro, and nuclear generated power per KW-hr.
Solar is even worse, 30-50 times the cost of our present means of making electricity, depending on who you ask.

In the medium term, we can get electric vehicles, but not if car owners are forced to pay the true cost of wind and solar - which come out around the equivalent of 18 a gallon for wind electricity and 36-72 dollars a gallon for solar.

As things stand now, nuclear power is even cheaper than coal, and next-Gen plants can be built with less expensive, less complicated systems than the 70s Gen plants because of passive cooling and the computer controls revolution, offering more savings, with less upfront capital needed to site and build. Especially if we fast track construction and environmental permitting, drawing on the French process which takes a couple of years vs the 400% longer past American way of bogging down then passing hundreds of millions in delay costs onto the ratepayer.

************
lvf - In this way, we can think of ethanol as an energy storage system (or exotic battery) in the same way hydrogen would be if we were going to use fuel cell vehicles.

Using ethanol to make electricity to run an electric motor is 60-70% less efficient than direct propulsion via motor.

Posted by Chris Ford | June 10, 2008 5:53 PM

MY - I want your shared items link...post it man!

Posted by Steve C | June 10, 2008 6:00 PM

Funny, that is what any engineer not making money selling "exciting alternative energy solutions" thinks about solar, wind, and all the chickenshit stuff like "tidal power".

stuff

Using ethanol to make electricity to run an electric motor is 60-70% less efficient than direct propulsion via motor.

Posted by Chris Ford | June 10, 2008 5:53 PM

1) Yeah, pretty much. In fact, I happen to have a PhD in science/engineering.

2) I'm aware of the tradeoff. But unless you are convinced that cheap, reliable, safe, very fast charging batteries which can cycle nearly indefinitely at both high power densities and outputs are about to emerge, then we aren't going to be driving with straight electricity. I am a big proponent of going to plug-in hybrids (note that these could still use E85) and then hopefully one day to pure electric-drive, but from what I understand the battery technology is still quite a ways off. Plug-in hybrids with flex fuel engines seems like a great solution to get close to an electric car without the battery technology necessary available for a pure electric.

Posted by lfv | June 10, 2008 6:17 PM

Whose, not who's.

Posted by Dave | June 10, 2008 7:19 PM

lfv, because of the cap-and-trade regime that McCain and Obama both support?

McCain wants a 60% cut in carbon emissions, Obama wants a 80% cut. The remaining emission level after a 60% cut is precisely twice the remaining emission level after an 80% cut. So their policies are not identical.

Posted by Peter H | June 10, 2008 7:42 PM

Also, Thomas, McCain has called for the role nuclear energy can play in U.S. energy policy, at one point saying that "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?" I don't see how that's possible without huge increases federal support for nuclear power.

Posted by Peter H | June 10, 2008 7:51 PM

Also, Thomas, McCain has called for massively increasing the role nuclear energy should play in U.S. energy policy, at one point saying that "If France can produce 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?" I don't see how that's possible without huge increases in federal support.

Posted by Peter H | June 10, 2008 7:55 PM

Peter, it's easy to see how that's possible, if nuclear power is cheaper to produce on a massive scale than wind or solar power, for example. What's difficult to see?

Posted by Thomas | June 10, 2008 9:22 PM

Well, the libertarian Cato Institute doesn't agree - they argue that nuclear power is viable only with government subsidies.

And McCain has explicitly called for expanded loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear plants.

Posted by Peter H | June 10, 2008 11:12 PM

Oh Matt,
tried that self-awareness thingie.
New media voice decries newer.
Irony much?
C

Posted by Poicephalus | June 11, 2008 12:51 AM

Oh Matt,
tried that self-awareness thingie.
New media voice decries newer.
Irony much?
C

Posted by Poicephalus | June 11, 2008 12:53 AM

frgvdblpOst, intrnl ror

Posted by Poicephalus | June 11, 2008 12:57 AM

Nuke energy almost came to life again but it didn't make it. Costs have doubled since 02 when the ball really started rolling again. $10 billion or more for a plant, ha ha ha ha. It is going to take subsidy on a massive scale to get them going and while McCain is game I think everyone else will be less willing.

Nuke energy was always about subsidy anyway. It had as much to do with free markets as the 1972 Five Year Plan.

Posted by rapier | June 11, 2008 6:11 AM