Slashdot Mirror
The Presidential Candidate With a Plan To Run the US On 100% Clean Energy
merbs writes: Thus far, no other candidate has said they're going to make climate change their top priority. Martin O'Malley has not only done that, but he has outlined a plan that would enact emissions reductions in line with what scientists say is necessary to slow global climate change—worldwide emissions reductions of 40-70 percent by 2050. He's the only candidate to do that, too. His plan would phase out fossil-fueled power plants altogether, by midcentury.
Doesn't really talk about nuclear in any way. You can read between the lines a bit, though.
It talks about mandating clean energy by 2050. Clean energy is not strictly defined -- by most standards I've seen, nuclear is clean because it doesn't have significant carbon emissions. And there's a lot about capping carbon emissions.
Other parts of the document talk about increasing renewable energy use, which is not nuclear but doesn't contradict nuclear also being used.
Parts of the document talk about ending all subsidies for fossil fuels. Nuclear is definitely not a fossil fuel.
The same guy has been on the record in the past (2009) as pro-nuclear, but I didn't find any more recent statements (other than Iran): http://us.arevablog.com/2009/0...
Because http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg
We have cars coming off the assembly line now that will take 20 years to fully phase out. As much as I'd love to just throw fossil fuels out the window, the transition will take time.
Unless you believe in magic.
Before the Civil War they said freeing the slaves would ruin the economy. The US had to free them because it was a moral imperative. The war cost us 5% of the US population in casualties. The sum total of the monetary value of all slaves at the start of the civil war was roughly one trillion dollars in today's dollars. The slaves were freed and the US became the world's greatest economic power as a result.
Really? The US didn't become the number one economy until 1916 - about the time that most of the European powers (specifically, the UK - which was the biggest economy before the US stepped into that role) were deep into World War I. World War II pretty much cemented our position as the rest of the first world (and much of the 2nd) was bombed and broken. I don't think it was the slaves that made us the greatest economic power, but rather the fact we have two large bodies of water keeping us relatively safe from wars in Europe and Asia.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
nuclear is extremely expensive; far more expensive than wind or solar, on average.
True, but Nuclear works when its dark and there's no wind. Nuclear is a base load source so should only be compared against other base load sources.
Some people fudge their figures in various ways (not taking into account decommissioning costs and waste handling costs, etc.) to make it look like it isn't, though.
Nuclear probably has the most accurate and transparent cost model of all the base load options. So if it looks expensive, it's because all power generation is, but Nuclear is forced to include ALL costs, while the likes of coal get a free ride. If you include the costs of climate change, which is a cost of Coal Power, it's pretty much the most expensive thing ever in all of human history.