Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Presidential Candidate With a Plan To Run the US On 100% Clean Energy

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-glory-to-the-hypnotoad dept.

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.

8 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. If it doesn't include nuclear... by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then it's not a plan. It's just a bullshit pipe dream that he's selling you for your vote.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:If it doesn't include nuclear... by Your.Master · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

    2. Re:If it doesn't include nuclear... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've got nothing against nuclear. It can play an important role in the energy economics of the future. But pro-nuke nuts really need to get a grip. In the real world, and not in the fantasy world that they imagine, nuclear is extremely expensive; far more expensive than wind or solar, on average. 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 makes sense in places where wind, solar, and hydroelectric aren't available or are expensive for the quantity of power needed. For instance, near some dense population centers. But if you look at the way energy technology is going, we don't really need nuclear to transition away from fossil fuels. Sure, it might help, but we can do without it if needed. Solar is a minor player now, but it's growing fast. In the future solar could very well provide us with all the power we're ever going to need and more. Actually, it's even possible there's going to be a huge surplus of power.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    3. Re:If it doesn't include nuclear... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. Re:Nuclear? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks to Tesla among others we're getting closer. There are a number of strategies under active development including battery, flywheel, thermal, and hydro conversion storage. It's an engineering problem. We simply need sufficient economic motivation to solve it.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  3. Re:Phase out fossil-fueled power plants by midcent by JWW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Followed the link, searched for nuclear, didn't find it in the story. Closed the page.

    If you are espousing 0 emission energy in the next 35 years, and you don't mention nuclear as a necessary component, then you are lying.

  4. Re:Phase out fossil-fueled power plants by midcent by robot256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I heartily support the construction of all nuclear plants that have an competitive lifecycle cost. I'm sure they will a fill a niche in the market that the currently endless flood of solar, wind, and grid-storage bids at a quarter the cost cannot possibly fill.

    Sarcasm aside, take a look at some of the recent studies showing how to decarbonize electricity production in the next 20 to 40 years with no new research, and coincidentally, very little new nuclear capacity. The ONLY barriers are social and political--even now the economics are so compelling that every call for projects solicits more than regulators and utilities want to accept. In another 2-5 years, battery tech will invalidate every last excuse they have been using to discourage wind and solar, and the fuel-free future will finally take off.

  5. Re:Yeah, well .... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who wouldn't rather get "free energy" from the wind, the natural flow of water, or the sun shining down on us?

    Who indeed.

    http://priceofoil.org/fossil-f...

    http://www.petrostrategies.org...

    https://www.opensecrets.org/po...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.