Obama: "Under my [...] plan, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

[Bono]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. … You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."

[Franzl]

old news.

please read other threads before posting garbage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

obiously, the dems are against burning anything based on carbon, which is a shame since we have buttloads of natgas and coal

[Eraserhead]

old news.

please read other threads before posting garbage.

[12th Doctor]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion.  In reality, it would cost far more, because his plan calls for the subsidizing of the most inefficient, least cost effective sources of energy.  It would be worse than doing nothing.  Plus, he is acting on the assumption that energy demands can be lowered.  Even if all current demand could be lowered by 75%, new demand means that there is no chance of achieving his 15% goal.

[??????????]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion.  In reality, it would cost far more, because his plan calls for the subsidizing of the most inefficient, least cost effective sources of energy.  It would be worse than doing nothing.  Plus, he is acting on the assumption that energy demands can be lowered.  Even if all current demand could be lowered by 75%, new demand means that there is no chance of achieving his 15% goal.

He doesn't have any real plans besides being a yes man to a Democrat congress.

[Kalimantan]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

[MODU]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

Not necessarily.

[J. J.]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

Obama is 100% right when he says we need a long term energy policy (the one thing that he's sold me on).  He's 100% wrong when he claims this a way to lessen the upcoming recession.

[Kalimantan]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

Not necessarily.

At least you're not as adamant as JJ.

Why shouldn't this kind of spending help?

[MODU]

Why shouldn't this kind of spending help?

When you consider it will be set aside primarily for alternative energy, the money will be spent more on R&D and high cost prototypes rather than in general commercial production.  And with his plans to make it more difficult for current energy production expansion to continue (coal, oil, nuclear), the cost of energy will rise, meaning that cost of materials and production will rise as a result.  Higher expenses on the smaller companies will lead to potential job layoffs, which could counter any job creation after a few years of development of the alternative energy platforms.  If Obama would just get that liberal stick out of his butt and embrace total energy development, then you would see stable to lower energy prices as well as many jobs being created by encouraging construction of power plants using proven technology while also spending on the R&D for future energy platforms.

[J. J.]

Why shouldn't this kind of spending help?

When you consider it will be set aside primarily for alternative energy, the money will be spent more on R&D and high cost prototypes rather than in general commercial production.  And with his plans to make it more difficult for current energy production expansion to continue (coal, oil, nuclear), the cost of energy will rise, meaning that cost of materials and production will rise as a result.  Higher expenses on the smaller companies will lead to potential job layoffs, which could counter any job creation after a few years of development of the alternative energy platforms.  If Obama would just get that liberal stick out of his butt and embrace total energy development, then you would see stable to lower energy prices as well as many jobs being created by encouraging construction of power plants using proven technology while also spending on the R&D for future energy platforms.

Agreed, but it isn't a short term fix, either way.

[MODU]

Agreed, but it isn't a short term fix, either way.

Nope, it's not.  And both the Republicans and Democrats have been wrong on a lot of this issue in different ways.  This is one of the few times where the government should have the power to pool the industries together and make them work create the framework for future infrastructure, distribution, and development of not only current energy sources but also future.  It's going to require increased oil, natural gas, nuclear, hydrogen, wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal production, and there is no way that the individual power companies or the government can plan the future separately.

[Kalimantan]

Why shouldn't this kind of spending help?

When you consider it will be set aside primarily for alternative energy, the money will be spent more on R&D and high cost prototypes rather than in general commercial production.  And with his plans to make it more difficult for current energy production expansion to continue (coal, oil, nuclear), the cost of energy will rise, meaning that cost of materials and production will rise as a result.  Higher expenses on the smaller companies will lead to potential job layoffs, which could counter any job creation after a few years of development of the alternative energy platforms.  If Obama would just get that liberal stick out of his butt and embrace total energy development, then you would see stable to lower energy prices as well as many jobs being created by encouraging construction of power plants using proven technology while also spending on the R&D for future energy platforms.

There HAS to be a slight increase in cost of traditional energy (through emissions charges) as a stick to get the 'new' energy sources online and cheap. Otherwise nothing will change, which it has to if we are serious about energy independence and combatting global warming. I don't think it will be as dramatic as you suggest, and higher expenses on smaller companies will only happen if we can't get new energy sources online. And if we can't do that, Obama will scale down the costs so as not to hurt the middle-classes.

Very much agree with your second post, I'm particularly pleased that energy is getting as much play as it is, and hopefully one of the benefits of complete control for the DEMs is that a tru non-partisan policy for the future can be put in place, safe from all the horse-trading that nomally goes on between the parties. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if what you want to happen does

[12th Doctor]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

Yeah, sure it will.  I wonder, how does Obama intend to create new jobs and get energy companies to be more innovative and invest in new technologies when he is going to charge them $500 per person in the United States for what he calls "excessive profits"?

[Kalimantan]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

Yeah, sure it will.  I wonder, how does Obama intend to create new jobs and get energy companies to be more innovative and invest in new technologies when he is going to charge them $500 per person in the United States for what he calls "excessive profits"?

Oh, I don't think today is the day for this kind of debate. Energy is such a huge issue and everyone here can cherrypick different parts of the issue to make their case. I know what I want from an energy policy, and although Obama has some differences with my views, its a lot lot closer than Bush's policy, so I'm confident it will improve.

Obama has declared that we will invest $15bn/year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating 5 million new jobs - largely by expanding the use of renewables to supply a tenth of our electricity within 10 years, insulate a million homes a year and put a million 'plug-in hybrids' on the road by 2015. He will also invest in clean engine technology, improve fuel ecomony standards by 4 percent a year and give a tax credit of $7000 to people who but 'green cars'.

John McCain, fwiw, has also promised millions of green jobs. Japan, Australia and the UK are all planning similar investments as central parts of their economic rescue plans, and many US economists see a Green New Deal as a fundamental part of the solution to the financial crisis.

So there you go.

[12th Doctor]

Obama admits his energy plan would cost at least $150 billion. 

Which will provide a lot of jobs and kick start the economy

Yeah, sure it will.  I wonder, how does Obama intend to create new jobs and get energy companies to be more innovative and invest in new technologies when he is going to charge them $500 per person in the United States for what he calls "excessive profits"?

Oh, I don't think today is the day for this kind of debate. Energy is such a huge issue and everyone here can cherrypick different parts of the issue to make their case. I know what I want from an energy policy, and although Obama has some differences with my views, its a lot lot closer than Bush's policy, so I'm confident it will improve.

Obama has declared that we will invest $15bn/year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating 5 million new jobs - largely by expanding the use of renewables to supply a tenth of our electricity within 10 years, insulate a million homes a year and put a million 'plug-in hybrids' on the road by 2015. He will also invest in clean engine technology, improve fuel ecomony standards by 4 percent a year and give a tax credit of $7000 to people who but 'green cars'.

John McCain, fwiw, has also promised millions of green jobs. Japan, Australia and the UK are all planning similar investments as central parts of their economic rescue plans, and many US economists see a Green New Deal as a fundamental part of the solution to the financial crisis.

So there you go.

Buddy, I just did a policy brief of the candidates energy policies, so you can't fake me out here. Obama's proposal is the cheap attempt to try to give something to everyone.  Do you really want me to go down the list of his non-sense promises, such as putting up the money to build a whole 5 clean coal plants, while putting up money to try to shut down coal plants, and advancing millions in subsidies to help out coals competitors... pander perhaps?  Well, its a hundred million dollar pander, if that so.

As a state Senator, Obama voted in favor of energy deregulation.  I don't know where he stands on it now, since where Obama stands seems to change a bit, but if that is so, then he has voted for the very thing that has made it so difficult for clean energy to take hold, since these cleaner energy generation methods have higher overnight capital costs, and thus are a riskier investment for a wideopen market.  Obama claims that he wants to cut the countries electrical consumption by 15% in ten years and has crafted his support for solar and wind, and lack of support for heavy generation capacity forms like nuclear around this... but he also wants to put a huge government subsidy into electric cars, which will cause a huge boost in the power needs of the country.

These are just a few things.  So I ask you, does it really sound to you like Obama has a coherant energy policy?