Amory Lovins Stock Options Plans Left In Tatters By High Oil Prices.

[NNadir]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/03global.html?hp

When Tesla Motors, a pioneer in electric-powered cars, set out to make a luxury roadster for the American market, it had the global supply chain in mind. Tesla planned to manufacture 1,000-pound battery packs in Thailand, ship them to Britain for installation, then bring the mostly assembled cars back to the United States.

Bread in a New Zealand supermarket. Soaring transportation costs also have an impact on food, from bananas to salmon.
But when it began production this spring, the company decided to make the batteries and assemble the cars near its home base in California, cutting more than 5,000 miles from the shipping bill for each vehicle...

...The world economy has become so integrated that shoppers find relatively few T-shirts and sneakers in Wal-Mart and Target carrying a “Made in the U.S.A.” label. But globalization may be losing some of the inexorable economic power it had for much of the past quarter-century, even as it faces fresh challenges as a political ideology.

Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.

“If we think about the Wal-Mart model, it is incredibly fuel-intensive at every stage, and at every one of those stages we are now seeing an inflation of the costs for boats, trucks, cars,” said Naomi Klein...

Amory may wish to get his greenwashing bills paid in cash and not in options.

Maybe during visiting hours at the Federal Pen, he can get some golden parachute advice from Jeff Skilling.

[kristopher]

1. Forget Nuclear

Forget Nuclear

By Amory B. Lovins, Imran Sheikh, and Alex Markevich

Nuclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant industry that’s dramatically reviving because it’s proven, necessary, competitive, reliable, safe, secure, widely used, increasingly popular, and carbon-free—a perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection, energy security, and powering a growing economy.

There’s a catch, though: the private capitalmarket isn’t investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist utilities aren’t buying. The few purchases, nearly all in Asia, are all made by central planners with a draw on the public purse. In the United States, even government subsidies approaching or exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have failed to entice Wall Street.

This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring taxpayer subsidies aren’t attracting investors. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost, construction time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals, let alone those competitors—which, however, already outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster.

Most remarkably, comparing all options’ ability to protect the earth’s climate and enhance energy security reveals why nuclear power could never deliver these promised benefits even if it could find free-market buyers—while its carbon-free rivals, which won $71 billion of private investment in 2007 alone, do offer highly effective climate and security solutions, sooner, with greater confidence....

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php


I didn't see anything in the Times article about Lovins, so I thought I'd help you out...
-K

[NNadir]

4. Of course you couldn't see anything in the article about the right wing paid (off)

dangerous fossil fuel freak apologist.

You are one of the least informed and least knowledgeable posters on this site, which is saying a lot.

I couldn't care less.

Pictures of Lovins being paid off by Walmart are available here on the RMI website:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid419.php



And here's a report about your right wing pal's attitude toward Democrats:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25967103/

You scratch the surface of any anti-nuke and you see a person who is working hard to keep the status quo or to make things worse with respect to dangerous fossil fuel waste.

Lovins is lucky of course he didn't get too close to his pal Jeff Skilling before Enron collapsed though or else he'd be screaming, along with Jeff, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/2/164449/7798/997/561406">Oh Shit! Here comes Lyndie England!

[kristopher]

5. Why do you try to smear Lovins?

That's a rhetorical question since the answer is obvious; he is the number one target for the nuclear industry's paid propaganda arm, the Nuclear Energy Institute. Trouble is, the ONLY thing you've got is that WalMart funds some of Lovins' research into energy efficiency and distributed generation. Somehow, I don't think that is the stinging indictment you seem to hope it will be. In fact it is right up there with McLame's Paris and Brittany ad...

The Nuclear Illusion
Amory Lovins & Imran Sheikh


A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.

That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.

Yet the more decisively nuclear power is humbled by swifter and cheaper rivals, the more zealously its advocates claim it has no serious competitors. The web of old fictions ingeniously spun by a coordinated and intensive global campaign is spread by a credulous press and boosted by the nuclear enthusiasts who, probably for the first time ever, now happen to lead nearly all major governments at once. Many people have been misled, including four well-known individuals with long environmental histories — amplified by the industry’s echo box into a sham but widely believed claim of broad green endorsement—and some key legislators. As a result, the U.S. Congress in late 2007 voted $18.5 billion, and the industry will soon be back for another $30+ billion, in new loan guarantees for up to 80% of the cost of new U.S. nuclear units. And the long-pronuclear British government, abruptly reversing its well-reasoned 2002 policy, has decided to replace its old nuclear plants with new ones, although, it claims, without public subsidy — a feat no country has yet achieved. Thus policy diverges ever farther from market realities. To mind the gap between claim and fact, let’s review each step in the nuclear catechism....

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf

[TheWraith]

6. People target him because he's a shill for Walmart and big industry.

He's the guy that Walmart and Exxon throw a consulting fee at to make it sound like they're not raping the planet to death.

[kristopher]

7. The only "people" who "target" him are NEI shills.

He's been giving you guys a case of the red ass for years.

[TheWraith]

8. I do love an unfounded personal attack.

It shows that the opponent has no legitimate grounds to argue on.

[kristopher]

9. You mean like the incessant ones made on Lovins???

[TheWraith]

10. No, those are on his lack of credibility, his band-aid solutions, and his unscientific "science."

Also on the fact that his paycheck is signed by some of the worst environmental offenders in the world. You know how his client list reads? BP, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Shell, Wal-Mart... He's a greenwasher, plain and simple. He's the guy that Walmart points to when people complain about them poisoning the landscape and the atmosphere with their Chinese slave-factories, and Walmart replies "No no, we're green. Ask our consultant here."

You know Lovins' solution to getting off of oil? Use natural gas! Which is conveniently also owned by the same robber-barons who own the oil. His solution for vehicles? Hydrogen, and let's ignore the very viable reality of electric vehicles, because those could be powered by something other than a fueling station.

There's a reason that he's the darling of The Economist and the Wall Street Journal. It's because underneath the veneer of energy efficiency he endorses our continued servitude to fossil fuels, private enterprise, and the people who own them.

[kristopher]

11. Bullshit. You are just pissed because he has been making the case against nuclear for 30 years.

The fact that you support nuclear shows you don't give a shit about the environmental impact of energy production.

I mean, it is odd isn't it, that the environmental community has a lot of respect for Lovins and the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY hates him?

So we get these posts like the OP that continually attack his character instead of his arguments.

[TheWraith]

13. If you can't rebut anything that I said, just admit it.

Unlike Lovins, I'd like to see an energy policy that isn't in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. Lovins has spent 30 years accomplishing absolutely nothing in real terms, other than exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants to see: a freeze on the status quo and a population meekly assured that everything will be well if we just bolt a solar panel onto the top of the latest Walmart.

[kristopher]

15. You haven't said anything except to make personal attacks on Lovins.

I posted a couple of his articles on the economic prospects of nuclear - address them and stop trying to paint plans for a renewable energy infrastructure with slander against one research institute.

[TheWraith]

16. I thoroughly went over the reasons that he's not credible.

You can't or won't address those points. I don't see why I should bother debunking Lovins' articles when it's obvious you have no intention of listening to anything other than your preconceived notions.

[kristopher]

20. No, all you did was attack him based on supposed conflicts of interest.

There are no points to address except the fact that you avoid his actual arguments like the plague.

Scared you'll learn something??

[NNadir]

12. Lovins is a public figure. He makes oodles of money from his public stance.

He is a major figure in a major corporation's greenwashing campaign, in fact, in the greenwashing of loads of major corporations and organizations which he himself identifies in his corporate biography.

Mr. Lovins’s clients have included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch,
Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, CIBA-Geigy, CLSA, Coca-Cola,
ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, Equitable, GM, Hewlett-Packard, Interface, Invensys, Lockheed Martin,
Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Ahold, Royal Dutch/Shell,
Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Texas Instruments, UBS, Wal-Mart, Westinghouse,
Xerox, major real-estate developers, and over 100 utilities. Public-sector clients have included
OECD, UN, Resources for the Future, the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments,
13 states, Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Department...

I have always loved the "major real estate developers" part, but Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell and Lockheed Martin is pretty damn good stuff too.

https://old.rmi.org/images/other/StaffBios/BioALovins_Acorp_iii07.pdf

You see that "RMI.ORG?" Are you here to say that I control the Lovins website?

Now Lovins has changed his biography, but no matter. He will probably delete his "old" biography for his misleading new one, but no matter.

You can't offer any proof about your claims about me, none whatsoever. You have no references. None.

I know who I am. You don't. You've never met me, and as my life is short, you never will meet me at least if I am aware of your connection to this website.

I want nothing whatsoever to do with you personally.

I don't claim to know who you are. In fact, I couldn't care less who you are.

I can speculate about your motivations, but in fact, they're not interesting. I don't actually think that even though they work in service to the dangerous fossil fuel industry that most anti-nukes work for that industry in a compensated way. I suspect that mostly they're like 1930's enthusiasts for Stalin in the 1930's, deliberately engaged in self-delusion and excuse making.

(I think most American Stalin aficionados in the 1930's were motivated by high motives, believing that they were doing something for downtrodden workers. They were completely misguided, completely misinformed and completely wrong, but their intentions in doing a malicious thing were good. The road to hell...and all that...)

I don't care where you make your living. I assume you're a citizen of this country but I couldn't care less.

I confront what you say, and offer no speculations about why you say them.

It is not for me to claim that you're a mindless consumer seeking to absolve himself of guilt, or that you're a mindless ascetic. You are not interesting.

As for the paid anti-nuke community:

I merely note that the world's two most prominent anti-nukes, Gerhard Schroeder and Amory Lovins - I assume you're not them but I have no way of proving it one way or the other - are paid huge amounts of money by the dangerous fossil fuel industry. In Lovins case, he is highly paid by a dangerous fossil fuel dependent company, the one that is trying to make its employees vote for McCain. I don't have a website chock full of praise for Walmart. If you'd like to assert that I do, prove it.

We could talk about Caldicott's fees, and a lot of other paid anti-nukes too, but what's the point? Either their ideas stand scrutiny or they don't.

One of the really hypocritical things that anti-nukes do is to try to frame the debate with wild irresponsible claims that overreach wildly.

I know who Lovins is. I withdraw not a single criticism of that right wing freak. Everything I say about him I can document, usually using his own damn web site.

(The stuff about his friendship with Skilling is no longer on his site, but it is elsewhere on the internet.)

I know people at the NEI. I had lunch with two of them about a year ago. They paid. I have written about that lunch publicly on another website.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/10/171654/268">The Nuclear Shill Apologizes.

Mostly I agree with their (the NEI's) stances on nuclear energy - which are more or less identical to mine - however I note that they are funded by utilities, just like Amory Lovins. Thus they can't afford to take a stance on coal with the same level of guts that I can. They can't afford to be as confrontational about coal as I am.

If they paid me to write about nuclear energy, I would take the money and make it damn clear that I'm taking it. Unlike the anti-nuke community, I have ethics. Not one word of what I say would be changed by the pay.

Now, I will say this about you, as interpreted totally by what you say here and from no other source, hoping that I will never be in your presence, ever, at any time:

From what I see, again, based solely on your writings that I have read, you have no guts. You are irresponsible and dreamy and ill informed. You have no plan for phasing out coal or any other dangerous fossil fuel. From what I see, you're so wrapped up in me that you have zero to say on the subject of energy, nothing, meaningful anyway.

This isn't the "NNadir sucks" forum, but if it were, I'd have no problem coming here and facing the music. (Indeed, I have done as much for years.) It's the Energy and Environment forum, just like it's been for many years. If you have something to say about energy, say it.

I will say this about myself: If I stop writing here tomorrow, I will know that I did what I could to do the right thing.

[kristopher]

14. What load of sanctimonious crap.

Your "arguments" are juvenile tripe that are totally devoid of content. There is no economic or technical basis for supporting a transition from coal to nuclear, so you constantly engage with arguments like the one on Lovins in the OP.

My favorite is when you make the claim that since renewables haven't yet replaced fossil fuels, that is ipso facto proof that renewables CAN'T replace fossil fuels. On the face of it, only an absolute idiot could possibly buy into that as a "proof" of anything; but when considered against the political backdrop since Ronnie Raygun, it is an especially and stupendously stupid argument.

That typifies ALL of your content. Nothing but rude rantings and misleading claptrap designed to prevent people from actually coming together to get anything done. But that's OK; Lord willing and the creek don't rise (as my Granny used to say) this election is going to put the final nail in the coffin of the nuclear industry.

[NNadir]

17. Whatever kiddie.

It's hardly surprising how ill informed you are about the energy policies of the Democratic candidate.

Airhead.

[kristopher]

21. Obama's energy plan

On nuclear:

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy: Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-
carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we
eliminate nuclear power from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear
without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and
waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S.
Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear
power plants.

To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama
worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R – IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and
stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make
safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority.

Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on
objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that
the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage
technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our
government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant
questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.
(From PDF "energy plan" at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/ )


From the website at above link:
The Problem

Foreign Oil: America’s 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit costs our economy $1.4 billion a day, and $500 billion in 2006 alone. Every single hour, we spend $41 million on foreign oil.

Climate Change: As a result of climate change, glaciers are melting faster; the polar ice caps are shrinking; trees are blooming earlier; more people are dying in heat waves; species are migrating, and eventually many will become extinct.
Barack Obama’s Plan
Reduce the Burden of Rising Gas Prices on Working Families

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Barack Obama has called on the President to enact a second round of economic stimulus to immediately put tax rebates in the pockets of American families to pay for rising energy prices. As president, Obama will enact a tax fairness agenda that provides 150 million workers a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of $500 per person or $1,000 per working family.

Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation

* Fully Close the “Enron Loophole”. One of the reasons our energy market is particularly vulnerable to excessive speculation is the so-called “Enron Loophole” which prevents the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) from fully overseeing the oil futures market. As president, Barack Obama will fully close the Enron loophole by requiring that U.S. energy futures trade on regulated exchange to crack down on any excessive speculation in the energy market.
* Ensure That U.S. Energy Futures Cannot be Traded on Unregulated Offshore Exchanges. Barack Obama will limit the price impacts of excessive speculation by preventing traders of U.S. crude oil from routing their transactions through off-shore markets in order to evade speculation limits and also impose reporting requirements.
* Work with Other Countries to Coordinate Regulation of Oil Futures Markets. Barack Obama believes we must work with our other countries to establish uniform approaches to avoiding excessive speculation in commodities futures markets. This effort will help ensure that as the U.S. strengthens oversight and transparency in U.S. exchanges, these efforts are not undermined by overseas trading subject to lax regulations.
* Call on the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice to Vigorously Investigate Market Manipulation in Oil Futures. Barack Obama does not believe we cannot afford to wait weeks and months more to vigorously investigate whether energy traders and oil companies manipulating the market at the expense of consumers. He is calling on the FTC to immediately expedite its investigation into market manipulation, including in the oil futures markets.

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax on the Top Grossing Oil Companies and Ease the Burden on American Families: The oil industry has profited greatly—over $150 billion in 2007—due to global instability fueled by conflict in Iraq, failing domestic fiscal policies that have weakened the U.S. dollar and skyrocketing global demand resulting from a lack of investment in alternatives. Barack Obama supports imposing a windfall profits penalty on oil selling at or over $80 per barrel. Revenue from the proposal will be invested in a number of measures to reduce the burden of rising prices on families.

Require Oil Companies to Use Existing Drilling Leases: The 68 million acres of stockpiled leases have the potential to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil each day. This would nearly double total U.S. oil production. The Obama plan would force oil and gas companies to either produce or pay a fee on unused federal onshore and offshore leases they are stockpiling.

End Oil and Gas Industry Tax Breaks: Obama has called for repealing the oil and gas industry tax breaks that President Bush himself has said himself are unnecessary given today’s strong market incentive for expanding exploration and production.

Cooperate with Oil Importing Nations to Reduce Demand: As new large oil importing nations come on the market, the United States is at the mercy of an ever more volatile oil market. Obama believes we should use existing organizations, like NATO, to make energy security a shared global goal. We should take steps to engage the largest new consumers, China and India, including by inviting them to join the International Energy Agency.
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

* Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
* Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Invest in a Clean Energy Future

* Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
* Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
* Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
* Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
* Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
* Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
* Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.

Support Next Generation Biofuels

* Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
* Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
* Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
* Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.

Set America on Path to Oil Independence

Obama's plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.

* Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.

Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030

* Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He'll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
* Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
* Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage

Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change

* Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
* Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.

Barack Obama's Record

* Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
* CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called "real as opposed to hypothetical results."

[bananas]

22. Whatever kiddie.

It's hardly surprising how ill informed you are about the energy policies of the Democratic candidate.

Airhead.

[TheWraith]

18. Again, please try to get basic facts right.

"There is no economic or technical basis for supporting a transition from coal to nuclear"

What the hell is that statement supposed to mean?

"My favorite is when you make the claim that since renewables haven't yet replaced fossil fuels, that is ipso facto proof that renewables CAN'T replace fossil fuels."

I believe he means that despite 30 years of wishing real hard, solar power hasn't miraculously become cost effective.

"That typifies ALL of your content. Nothing but rude rantings and misleading claptrap designed to prevent people from actually coming together to get anything done."

Any describing anyone who disagrees with you as "shills" and "nuts," pushing "sanctimonious crap" and "juvenile tripe" is what your college debate team taught you, then?

"Lord willing and the creek don't rise (as my Granny used to say) this election is going to put the final nail in the coffin of the nuclear industry."

You know that Obama supports the use of nuclear power, yes?

[kristopher]

19. Yes, he does: when waste and non-proliferation issues are solved.

You really should read more original source documents.

[bananas]

2. original thread: UK nuclear plans left in tatters after collapse of EDF deal; Fierce row breaks out

NNadir's post seems to be a response to something I recently posted,
so I'll repost it here.

It contains three articles:
- Bid for Britain's nuclear power stations goes piff paff poof
- UK nuclear plans left in tatters after collapse of EDF deal
- Fierce row breaks out over failed EDF bid


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x165536

UK nuclear plans left in tatters after collapse of EDF deal; Fierce row breaks out

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/bid-for-britains-nuclear-power-stations-goes-piff-paff-poof-20080801

Bid for Britain's nuclear power stations goes piff paff poof
Posted by jamie on 1 August 2008.

It's usually poor form to laugh at another's misfortunes, but in this case I feel a slight chortle is more than justified. EDF's bid to takeover British Energy - the semi-state owned company charged with looking after the UK's nuclear power stations - has been kicked out, throwing a spanner of cosmic proportions into our government's plans for a new atomic age. Oops, butterfingers.

The French state-owned power company was expected to announce this morning that the ink was drying on the deal, worth over £12 billion, but early this morning it released a statement saying it was pulling out. Although the government was apparently more than happy to accept the offer on the table, it only owns 35 per cent of British Energy, some other stakeholders were not so keen. Given the ongoing hikes in energy prices, they think their assets are worth far more and so thumbed a collective raspberry at EDF's bid.

So why is there reason to be cheerful? If the deal had gone ahead, it would have dealt a hammer blow to our chances of meeting the legally binding Renewables Obligations, which must see at least 15 per cent of our total energy coming from renewables by 2020. Why? Because EDF have gone on record saying that if there is significant growth in renewable energy, the case for nuclear falls apart.

<snip>

This is really just a shameful attempt to scare everyone into accepting nuclear power. A new report by clever energy people Pöyry demonstrates that if the government actually does fulfil its commitments to meet EU renewable energy targets (and doesn't keep trying to stitch them up again and again) and its own ambitions to increase energy efficiency and reduce demand, then we won't need any more nuclear power stations. Or any new coal or gas ones, either. And that's true even by the government's own reckoning. So a little less scaremongering from the likes of Hutton and from a media that really should know better wouldn't go amiss. Instead, I'd like to see a bit more effort put into delivering the real energy solutions which will help us beat climate change.

<snip>

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-nuclear-plans-left-in-tatters-after-collapse-of-edf-deal-883357.html

UK nuclear plans left in tatters after collapse of EDF deal
By David Prosser, Deputy Business Editor
Saturday, 2 August 2008

<snip>

Energy strategists said the failure of the takeover raised serious question-marks about Britain's nuclear future. The collapse of the deal is a major blow for the Government, which holds a 35 per cent stake in British Energy.

<snip>

The British company nevertheless hopes EDF will return to the negotiating table because a deal offers a much more straightforward way for the French company to fulfil its promise to shareholders of international expansion in the nuclear sector.

The UK is the only realistic market for this expansion and British Energy not only owns the most likely sites for the second generation of plants but also has experience of running nuclear plants in this country.

<snip>

EDF's executives are privately furious about the collapse of the deal, having arranged press conferences yesterday to unveil the takeover. The French company is understood to have believed Sir Adrian had given it a personal assurance that his board would recommend its offer to shareholders. But British Energy executives insist no such promise was made, arguing that the deal was always going to be a difficult one to sell to investors.

<snip>

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/75737216-602c-11dd-805e-000077b07658.html

Fierce row breaks out over failed EDF bid

By Rebecca Bream, Kate Burgess and Jean Eaglesham in,London and Ben Hall in Paris

Published: August 2 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 2 2008 03:00

A fierce row broke out between two of the biggest energy companies in France and Britain yesterday after EDF's planned £12bn bid for British Energy was rejected at the last minute because shareholders said that it was too low.

<snip>

"Calling a press conference was stupid. They knew the issue was there," the person said.

One EDF board member said yesterday that his group thought that the UK government's support for the deal would help persuade the rebellious fund managers. "The French are used to a much more interventionist state. When the state says yes or no, the others follow," the board member said.

The collapse of the deal caught the UK government unawares. John Hutton, the business secretary, had been poised to hail the EDF acquisition today as a significant step in delivering Gordon Brown's pledge of a new generation of nuclear reactors.

<snip>

[DCKit]

3. I would still have to eat some 'shrooms and smoke a fatty...

to get creative enough to conjure up a connection.

And they say these new prescription drugs aren't dangerous. Jeez.