Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Hillary wants to follow the Germany Energy Model

The Democratic candidates prove again in Ohio last night that they don't understand the picture. Hillary is all for ill thought out solutions including solar panels on roofs, wind turbines, geothermal (in Ohio), and biofuels. Hillary's solutions are a bunch of crap! CRAP! Hillary wants to follow the model of Germany. How idiotic! Does Hillary have the slightest idea what is going on Germany? So Hillary wants to spend billions of dollars, and create millions of jobs for efforts that will not curb CO2 emissions, and will not solve what will become in the next few years increasingly urgent national energy problems.

Obama was only marginally better. Although he talked about education, science and technology, the money words were windmills, alternative fuels, and energy efficiency. Young people are going to find jobs, but will they be able to heat their homes in the winter?

"I helped to pass legislation to begin a training program for green collar jobs. I want to see people throughout Ohio being trained to do the work that will put solar panels on roofs, install wind turbines, do geothermal, take advantage of biofuels, and I know that if we had put $5 billion into the stimulus package to really invest in the training and the tax incentives that would have created those jobs as the Democrats wanted, as I originally proposed, we would be on the way to creating those.

You know, take a country like Germany. They made a big bet on solar power. They have a smaller economy and population than ours. They've created several hundred thousand new jobs, and these are jobs that can't be outsourced. These are jobs that have to be done in Youngstown, in Dayton, in Cincinnati. These are jobs that we can create here with the right combination of tax incentives, training, and a commitment to following through. So I do think that at least 5 million jobs are fully capable of being produced within the next 10 years."

-- Hillary Clinton

"We're going to have to invest in infrastructure to make sure that we're competitive. And I've got a plan to do that. We're going to have to invest in science and technology. We've got to vastly improve our education system. We have to look at energy and the potential for creating green jobs that can not just save on our energy costs but, more importantly, can create jobs in building windmills that will produce manufacturing jobs here in Ohio, can put rural communities back on their feet by working on alternative fuels, making buildings more energy efficient. We can hire young people who are out of work and put them to work in the trade."

-- Barack Obama
We are still in the stage where politicians offer words, not solutions. Words are safe in uncertain times.   Words don't loose candidates votes as long as they stay away from the wrong words.  Neither candidate mentioned the word nuclear.  Surely nuclear is part of any solution to the problem of climate change and keeping energy coming to producers and consumers.  I guess that the word was regarded as to dangerous to mention by the candidates spin advisors.  


Fifi said...

Clinton's position is not a surprise. Hazel O'Leary, her hubby's pick for the the DoE, was a absolute disaster for nuclear R&D and the national labs.

In the case of Obama, I suspect some degree of obfuscation and soothing towards the anti-nuclear wing of the Democratic base.

Obama has an energy company as his #10 top donor. Pretty unusual for a Democrat. But even more unusual, that company is Exelon Corp, which is, I believe, the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the US.


Money talks.

Charles Barton said...

Of course money talks, when I was in negotiations with the city of Dallas, it was understood that campaign contributions to city counsel members would be appreciated. Heaven forbid that this would be seen as an attempt to bribe a politician. That is not the way the American political system works. Campaign contributions increase the chances that you will be heard.

Ashutosh said...

Instead of talking about Germany, why don't they talk about France...

Charles Barton said...

Because the French eat snails?

Sovietologist said...

Don't fret about Hillary- her campaign is disintegrating fast. Two weeks from now it may be a memory.

I take comfort in the fact that neither Obama or Hillary will "take nuclear off the table," in Ralph Nader's phrase. These are politicians competing in the Democratic presidential primary! In my mind this is good news, and probably symptomatic of a pro-nuclear shift in Democratic politics, however stupid the things they say in public are.

Charles Barton said...

This did not come as a surprise to me. The national dialogue still reflects our profound confusion. We still do not realize yet how deeply we are going to be effected by the looming energy crisis triggered by world demand outstripping peak oil supply. The energy shortage may quickly become more pressing than than global warming.

It is going to take a while for us to wake up from our confusion and develop a sense of urgency, but it will happen before the next president leaves office.

Stephen said...

It is absolutely stunning to me that the German energy program is cited as a success. They have increased coal use and the actual amount of energy from renewable is tiny despite the fact that it has been running the government toward bankruptcy.

Germany is the ultimate example of bad energy policy. They have strict carbon standards for everything except coal power plants. They say power plants can "opt out" - in other words they have to follow the standards unless they do not want to..

The fact that they are down in co2 over the past 20 years is entirely because of the retirement of old Soviet era equipment in the East.

Charles Barton said...

Hillary doesn't have a clue.

Anonymous said...

If the Democrats win the Presidential election you can kiss any dreams of a nuclear renaissance goodbye. The new Pres will have to put all sorts of new people into power positions in Washington. That means a major increase of enviro-alarmists in key positions. They will work together to suppress every hope of new nuclear. They might not be able to stop them all, but the brakes will be on, fully on. If any new nukes are started in the next decade they will be in China, using research and designs paid for by the USA.

Charles Barton said...

The second nuclear age is upon us, and it is not in the power of politicians to stop it.


Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High