Obama and McCain Square Off on Solar 12 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
By Ucilia Wang
As the U.S. presidential election approaches, the solar sector – along with the rest of the greentech industry and the country – is deciding how to cast its vote.
The good news is that both presidential candidates have touted solar power as part of their energy plans.
Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain have repeatedly mentioned solar power in speeches and interviews to show their support for alternative energy. The two men, in fact, share some similar goals that could help the country gradually move away from power plants fueled by coal and natural gas.
For example, they both support the creation of a carbon emissions-trading program, which will prompt heavy polluters such as power-plant operators who can't meet emissions requirements to buy credits from those who can. Obama and McCain also want to upgrade the nation's decrepit electrical grid, a move supporters say is critical for transporting wind and solar power from generation facilities in remote areas.
Neither candidate has pledged to spend money specifically on renewable-power generation. Obama says he would set aside $15 billion per year for clean energy, but the spending would be spread over a wide range of areas, including plug-in hybrid cars, biofuels, "low-emission coal plants" and, yes, renewable-electricity production.
McCain proposes a $300 million prize for an advanced battery technology for cars. Advances in battery technology also could benefit solar power, which is limited by its ability to only produce power when the sun is shining while customers use power throughout the day and evening, whether it's raining or not. Being able to store and dispatch the electricity whenever it's needed could boost the demand for solar, industry insiders have said.
Both men also have given their energy plans what they believe to be catchy names. McCain calls his the Lexington Project, named after the town in Massachusetts where the first shot in the American Revolution was fired. Obama, meanwhile, told Time Magazine he wants to launch an "Apollo project" to build an alternative-energy economy.
But Obama has laid out a few more policies specifically targeted at growing solar power faster.
According to Obama's plan, the federal government would mandate renewable-energy use and create legislation that divorces a utility's revenues and its electricity use. A decoupling law already in place in California, for example, rewards utilities for programs that conserve energy, such as by offering customer rebates for buying energy-efficient appliances.
This type of utility regulation, coupled with a renewable-energy mandate that would require 10 percent of the electrical power to come from renewable sources by 2012, would give utilities more incentives to install or buy power from solar-energy plants than coal-fired plants, according to his campaign.
These two ideas are not novel. Several states, including New York, Maryland and Idaho, also have decoupling regulations for electric utilities. About half the states in the country have renewable-energy mandates, which have pushed utilities to develop solar and wind projects, as well as to sign long-term contracts with companies that build and operate those types of power plants. But Obama is proposing taking these initiatives national.
His plan also calls for a five-year extension of federal renewable-energy production credits. An energy tax package recently passed by Congress extends the wind-energy production credit by one year and credits for other alternative sources by two years starting Jan. 1.
McCain, on the other hand, doesn't embrace setting renewable-energy requirements. The argument? Any federal standard will not set the right goals for encouraging solar power, said Howard Berke, who represented McCain during a debate at the Solar Power International conference in San Diego in mid-October.
"It's difficult to accept that a national mandate will be the right solution for all 50 states," said Berke, the co-founder and executive chairman of Konarka Technologies. "You will find that it will set the lowest bar."
Berke does believe in requiring the White House to use solar energy in some fashion. Asked whether either candidate would reinstall a solar water heater – Ronald Reagan got rid of one when he was in the White House – Berke provided a more definitive answer than his debate opponent, Dan Reicher from Google.org.
"I guarantee that McCain will install solar, and I will personally supervise the installation," Berke said. "If we don't lead by example, then we don't lead at all."
Reicher didn't commit to an answer, aside from saying that Obama supports installing solar energy on federal buildings because the senator believes in making the buildings more energy efficient – which McCain also favors.
In the end, it's not just the candidates' rhetoric on solar power that will decide how the solar industry votes Tuesday. The voting records of both candidates and their other energy policies also will play a part.
Congress recently passed a set of renewable-energy tax credits that will make solar energy more affordable to consumers and businesses. But before its passage in October, lawmakers had repeatedly fought over issues such as how to pay for certain provisions and whether to take incentives away from oil companies.
McCain failed to show up to vote for the tax credits eight times, noted New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in August. Obama voted for it three times. Both showed up to cast a "yes" vote in early October, when lawmakers attached the tax credits to a bill for bailing out financial institutions (see Lawmakers Approve Energy Tax Credits, Bailout).
McCain's support of offshore oil drilling also hasn't endeared him to many solar energy advocates, who see the policy as shortsighted and bad for the environment. His strong support for nuclear power - he would like to see 45 new nuclear plants built by 2030 - also hasn't gone over well.
"Sen. Obama has been more supportive of renewable energy," said Ron French, whose solar installation business, Solar Works, recently merged with another installer, SolarWrights. "Sen. McCain is talking nuclear a lot, and offshore drilling. That, to us, doesn't feel right."
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
Tyler Durden
-
4
TraderMark
-
5
Peter Schiff
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 12 comments:
we need a major energy plan, not a political one. we need to pump massive amounts into research. any technology which requires subsidies should be off of the table for implementation. this simply biases the solution and creates corruption.
renewable energy has a carbon footprint. renewable energy normally envisions burning food crops or replacing food crops with in eatable crops - the net result is less food for the world. while it can be argued that we go through periods of surpluses, the future points to food shortfalls.
there are no easy answers here. california's energy program has had very negative consequences which almost bankrupted the utilities. no matter which conservation methods are employed, there will be a negative effect. no matter which new sources of energy is selected, there will be consequences also.
Anyway, I am a democrat, but Senator Obama's energy agenda doesn't interest me at all. At the same time however, I believe him intelligent enough to change that agenda if he is elected. Let me suggest that he changes it to the one presently advertised by Senator McCain, and that he finds someone with a nice personality and something upstairs to examine the merits or demerits of Governor Palin's beliefs on the energy front. Some of them make sense to this humble academic.
Furthermore, THE HAND is absolutely correct when he suggests that a major plan is necessary, and not a collection of fantasies and whims.
It's been 35 years since our first taste of how ENERGY could be used as a political weapon and they have done absolutey NOTHING!
We shot ourselves in the foot years ago when we allowed the left to kill nuclear, while even France has gone to plus 75% nuclear power. (Where do you think an electric car will get the energy to charge up its battery?) Just think, non-polluting, works with the current grid, independent of foreign sources, ready now, if we have the will. And the old arguement about waste is false, proven by other nations that have found safe disposal methods. We have billions invested in a ready facility in Nevada, the use of which is held hostage to Harry Reid. We can go with this and other methods or invest billions in marginally useful methods ala' the Carter administration, rememeber those dreamy days? McCain will support nuclear. Obama wants to....think about it.
action.pickensplan.com...
One other thing, it is okay to lie when campaigning. It is the Politicians prerogative to do so. The US Supreme Court declared this last year in a 5-4 ruling, at least thats the count I remember.
A single type of energy policy will never work. Terrain, population density or lack thereof, climate, etc. will not support just one type. Multiple types must be started simultaneously. If one type dominates in the future, so what, at least we will have additional energy supplies until that time.
The final paragraph pushes Obama over McCain. The posts here voice the pros and cons of the various Alt. Energy proposals.
Just because McCain pushes nuclear and the Article's writers do not like it, does not remove it from consideration.