Last week, President-Elect Barack Obama’s said that his economic stimulus plan will create half a million new green jobs for America.

“We’ll create nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy – by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes,” the president elect said. These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced.” 

Over 730,000 Californians have signed a petition to put Proposition 7 on the ballot in California.

Prop. 7 requires that by 2025, 50% of the electricity in the state will come from renewable sources (ie. solar, wind, biothermal, etc.) which is a great start but why not 100%?

Join Californians for Solar and Clean Energy and Vote YES on 7 ... Visit yeson7.net

Before I get into what Fusion Energy is and isn't, I would like to say there's no question that wind and solar technologies are rapidly evolving as viable sources of renewable energy. There's no question that they offer environmentally appealing alternatives to oil, coal, and nuclear (fission) power. They do, however, have their own environmental footprints derived during their manufacturing, transport, assembly, and maintenance. They incorporate electronics, lubricants, alloys, and chemicals that all have their own energy requirements and carbon footprints.

Please don't get me wrong. I am an ARDENT supporter of wind and solar power. I'm just suggesting that whenever we look at a "100% clean" source of electricity, we should also take an honest look at the total environmental impact of that technology and weigh the environmental costs against the total energy output expected during the operational lifespan of a particular solution.

In that context, a nuclear FUSION reactor will also incur the environmental costs of its constituent parts. Once operational, however, we can expect an exceptionally high cost to energy output ratio from a plant which could produce from 30 to 75 GigaWatts of electric power over a lifespan of 40, 50, perhaps even 100 years. They will also take significantly less physical space.

I have always enjoyed driving through the high desert and heartlands of our great nation, expressly to appreciate the horizon-to-horizon sweep of their majesty; unbroken by the slightest hint of human presence. To my mind, such limitless vistas are as much a part of what we hope to preserve as the air we breath and the water we drink. Fusion powerplants will preserve our vast natural landscapes for future generations to enjoy, while providing the industrial levels of power output required by an energy-hungry, 21st Century nation.

So far, I've been using words like "will", "should", and "expect". That's because fusion energy is still in the final stages of research and development. The technological challenges of building a working fusion powerplant are daunting. As mentioned in my previous post, however, progress is being made. Just not quickly enough.  

We need look no further than figures from the Edison Electric Institute to know why. According to their data for 2005, 49.7% of our nation's electricity was generated from coal, nuclear FISSION reactors produced 19.3%, and natural gas supplied 18.7%. Coal, nuclear, and natural gas account for nearly 88% of our electrical production and their producers obviously profit handsomely from this. If you look at this from a purely financial perspective, it makes total sense to have a strong lobbying presence in Washington to keep technologies which might threaten their dominance from gaining any sort of foothold.

This post is inspired by Americans for a Coal-Free VP! and Demands for the Candidates group, but I am linking it to the other groups that I have joined ... Anybody who feels motivated to make a difference is invited to visit 350 Alternatives to a Pro-Coal VP and make two phone calls that will have impact if a bunch of us do it, then post a blog or comment about the calls, and invite your friends to join the effort.  Please visit 350 Alternatives to a Pro-Coal VP.

Here is my suggestion for a demand for clarification from Senators Obama and McCain: Phone their campaign offices and ask to speak with a staffer -- ask the staffer if the senator supports a COAL MORTORIUM until and unless it has operational CARBON CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION (CCS).  Remind the staffer that CLEAN COAL is an OXYMORON at this point in time because CCS is not included in any of the pending plants' designs.  We must make our voices loud and clear: COAL MUST BE LEFT IN THE GROUND until CCS is installed and actually operational.

Barack Obama has the most responsible energy plan of the two. Let's take a look. 

The following is found on BarackObama.com on the page Barack Obama's Plan. [Actually the following was on the page July 21, but has since been updated and may be downloaded as a pdf ... but the update on coal is not any clearer today than it was two weeks ago. Read August 7 comment about the updated language. Edit added August 8]

Invest in a Clean Energy Future

• 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.

I think three phrases need to be clarified ... to me, in light of Al Gore's carbon-free electricity challenge, these sound like business as usual weasle words ... and they are used together in what appears to be a contradictory, imprecise and noncommital statement:

• "will consider whatever policy tools are necessary"
• "consider ... standards that ban new traditional coal facilities" 
• "commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology"

This does not sound like a commitment to "carbon-free electricity" to me ... 

In order to make sure Obama understands our fundamental concerns that he buys in to Mr. Gore's challenge, we need to hold his feet to the fire and demand full disclosure of his true intentions.  We must demand that he be clear ...

Let's be clear on this, these words are not clear.  We demand clarity.  

Barack -- and John!-- needs to state clearly that he is against any new coal-burning power plants that do not -- from day one -- use carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).  That means a MORATORIUM ON COAL that is not carbon-free.

Le's all call Obama's and McCain's campaign headquarter and tell them clearly that state that we support a COAL MORATORIUM until and unless CCS if installed and operational.  McCain won't but Obama will if enough of us speak up.

Tell them coal that is not "carbon-free" must remain in the ground if we hope to pass to our children and grandchildren a planet that is not irreversibly damaged by global warming.  Obama and McCan (there is no hope for McCain) need to let us know that they understand this imperative.  Read more about this at 350 Alternatives to a Pro-Coal VP.  Read the group description and the blog Join us!