Needless markup
Needless markup
Anne B. Butterfield
November 2, 2008 (Daily Camera)
This week the Republican National Committee opened a $5 million line of credit to support its senatorial candidates -- a real eyebrow raiser when seen against its choice on Labor Day to underwrite the $150,000 wardrobe for Gov. Sarah Palin, spent in high-end stores like Neiman-Marcus, which is widely known as Needless Markup.
If you like Sarah Palin's campaign wardrobe, you'll really like John McCain's energy plans. In it he always prioritizes nuclear energy, "clean coal" and offshore drilling. Each of these presents a most costly energy resource as well as a high risk of not delivering as hoped (kind of like his running mate).
The core flaw in McCain's energy scheme is his acceptance of industry's self-serving premise that our demand for energy shall grow by 30 percent in the next 20 years. No independent researcher writing about our nation's transition to clean energy omits efficiency and conservation as crucial to solving our predicament. To accept growth of demand is to consign us to a needlessly tough challenge while insulting the example of frugality set by our parents and grandparents during the wars of the 20th century. Do some of our leaders think we cannot do better?
McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear plants, which Bloomberg has conservatively estimated to cost $315 billion (or up to $540 billion). We the taxpayer will be on the hook for the loan guarantees for those, as banks will not invest in nuclear plants without guarantees, and they are estimated by the Government Accounting Office to have a failure rate of 50 percent. So for McCain's initial push of 45 plants, we might bail out $126 billion on the low end. The plants could not under the best of circumstances deliver power before 10 to 15 years' effort from permitting to final inspection.
"Clean coal" is another siren song. On account of high costs, developers keep canceling the high-tech precursor coal plants (known as IGCC) that are "carbon capture-ready." Nine such plants were canceled in 2007 including the flagship "Future Gen." The technical and siting challenges of "clean coal" promise roll-out delays that will make new nuclear seem easy.
McCain's proudest energy directive, "Drill, baby, drill!" would put our nation's coasts at risk for the sake of new oil that will go onto the open market where the highest foreign bidder can push the price out of reach.
When it comes to oil, we Americans can only play a sucker's game, because we have no leverage over supply. Plugging in electric vehicles, on the other hand, gives us access to myriad energy resources through electricity, which is the most efficient delivery system in every way, at about 75 cents per gallon equivalent. Such choices can include roof top solar which is true independence.
Barack Obama's energy plan favors aggressive expansion of wind, solar, plug-in electric hybrids, efficiency and conservation in every sector, plus new drilling if coupled with higher CAF standards, and new nuclear and "clean coal" as lesser solutions. That's a cost-effective list.
This week in Denver, Boulder's own Claudine Schneider (former congresswoman of Rhode Island and author of our nation's first efficiency policies) led a conference full of energy executives to chant the mantra "least cost energy" as the best way to address our energy crunch. She dismisses nuclear energy as our most expensive option, adding, "Given our financial constraints, it's imperative that policy makers guide policy with principles such as 'Least Cost' and 'Life Cycle Cost' -- rather than which industry will line some pockets. Energy efficiency and site-appropriate renewables are guaranteed to deliver more power for the buck."
Getting energy costs down soon will be hard and take new thinking -- but that's exactly what Americans have shown at their times of greatest challenge. This is no time to choose the leader who is lured, time and again, by pretty women and expensive, old-fashioned plans.