Romney Thinks Obama’s Energy Policies Are Outdated, Supports Fossil Fuels over 21st-Century Clean Energy

May 12th, 2012 by Zachary Shahan

Sorry, this is a clear WTF? Romney saying that Obama’s energy policies are outdated sounds like something out of the Onion… but I guess that’s been the theme of the 2012 election prelude from GOP leadership. Anyway, here’s more on that recent comment reposted from Planetsave:

Mitt Romney Says Obama’s Energy Policies Are Outdated — WTF? (via Planetsave)

The thing about the Republican party today, Republican leaders at least, is that they say anything they want, even if it’s completely divorced from reality, to try to win over voters. Heck, they even make claims completely divorced from their own policies and votes. The latest (I think.., though…

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: GOP, Obama, Republicans, Romney

About the Author

Zachary Shahan spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.

ENRG

Here’s one great example of current events; All that government money; Where are the private investors? Note how much came out of every americans pocket. There are many more just like this.:

Solyndra was just the appetizer. Earlier today, in what will come as a surprise only to members of the administration, the company which proudly held the rights to the world’s largest solar power project, the hilariously named Solar Trust of America (“STA”), filed for bankruptcy. And while one could say that the company’s epic collapse is more a function of alternative energy politics in Germany, where its 70% parent Solar Millennium AG filed for bankruptcy last December, what is relevant is that last April STA was the proud recipient of a $2.1 billion conditional loan from the Department of Energy, incidentally the second largest loan ever handed out by the DOE’s Stephen Chu. That amount was supposed to fund the expansion of the company’s 1000 MW Blythe Solar Power Project in Riverside, California. From the funding press release, “This project construction is expected to create over 1,000 direct jobs in Southern California, 7,500 indirect jobs in related industries throughout the United States, and more than 200 long-term operational jobs at the facility itself. It will play a key role in stimulating the American economy,” said Uwe T. Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Solar Trust of America and Executive Chairman of project development subsidiary Solar Millennium, LLC.” Instead, what Solar Trust will do is create lots of billable hours for bankruptcy attorneys (at $1,000/hour), and a good old equity extraction for the $22 million DIP lender, which just happens to be NextEra Energy Resources, LLC, another “alternative energy” company which last year received a $935 million loan courtesy of the very same (and now $2.1 billion poorer) Department of Energy, which is also a subsidiary of public NextEra Energy (NEE), in the process ultimately resulting in yet another transfer of taxpayer cash to NEE’s private shareholders.
- http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
  
  As I stated above, keep spreading misinformation and you will be marked as a spammer.
  
  Solar Trust did not take an DOE loans for the Blyth Solar Project!!
  
  “Everyone views the world through their owns lens, and those distortions shape how we interpret the world and the news.
  
  “So when a large solar entity like Solar Trust, which was involved with the troubled Blythe Solar Power Project, goes bankrupt — people and pundits react from their guts and not their minds.” http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/No-DOE-Funding-Went-to-the-Solar-Trust-Blythe-PV-Project/
  
  Insane drops in the cost/price of solar PV have forced Solar Trust out of the market This is not a sign of the solar industry failing, but a sign of certain portions of it making it very difficult for other portions to survive.
  
  And, to reiterate, the project above received NO DOE loans.
ENRG

Just found this site for the first time today. Just to show that you publish all views please allow someone with credentials other than myself to react to your editorial.

First from my view you do not encourage alternative energy development by throwing money in huge chunks as Mr. Obama has done. Split up the many hundreds of millions with smaller grants to emerging energy companies (there are thousands). Encourage renewable energy development with tax incentives (just like the ones the Oil companies get)

Do not choke the economic development of an entire country by blaming corporations as being evil and greedy. Are the companies Obama has supported also evil and greedy?

Consider that if all the alternative energy methods were vastly improved to the point that everyone could be Oil free, the process would take decades to make a dent in the current and future energy needs of this country.

During those decades Any major supplier of crude could bring this country to its knees simply by withdrawing oil or jacking the price so high we’d be thrown into the worst economic disaster ever recorded.

We need the insurance that domestic oil will provide while these technologies develop. This is not a matter of green philosophy between political parties, this is a matter of national security.
- Ross
  
  You’re not going to fool anyone around here with those lies.
  
  Domestic US oil production is at is at a high for almost the last decade.
  
  Domestic gas production is at an all time high.
  
  Net imports of oil as a share of total consumption declined from 57% in 2008 to 45% in 2011.
  
  So the numbers for the US to meet its fossil fuel requirements from domestic sources during the transition to sustainable energy sources are heading in the right direction.
  - ENRG
    
    official government numbers:
    
    US Oil production for 2009 was 9,056,000 barrels per day. 2010 was 9,688,000
    US Oil consumption for 2009 was 18,690,000 barrels per day. 2010 consumption was 19,180,000
    We IMPORT the remaining amount.
    The proved reserves for the US is 19,120,000,000
    
    That indicates that our production is up and so is our consumption. About equal. Even if production increases each year, so will consumption.
    
    This leaves a huge dangerous gap where we are dependent.
    
    We have the reserves to reduce this dependency to almost nothing over the next 10 years. That is if the US government will allow it to happen. Solar, wind etc. can not move fast enough to protect us from our dependency.
    
    Do you dispute these numbers?
    - Ross
      
      I certainly dispute your contention that there’s going to a an increasing deficit in production and demand that will be met by imports.
      
      Forecast from the US Energy Information Administration show the net import share declining out to 2034. The price of oil will be going up all this time making the transition to renewables ever more attractive.
      
      http://205.254.135.7/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=11-AEO2011&region=0-0&cases=ref2011-d020911a
      - ENRG
        
        We do not dispute the value of ANY renewable energy source and their importance for our future.
        
        Look at it this way. Solar currently contributes .02% of the US total energy production. If the solar industry gains by an incredible rate of 50% per year that would produce about 1.2% of todays power need in ten years of solar growth.
        
        A modest gain? Yes. And will the US power consumption stay at todays level.
        Nope. That makes the solar contribution just a tiny fragment of our needs.
        
        One large solar farm costs from one to 2 billion by todays standards. How many billions (or trillions) of dollars will our government take from your pocket and mine to support an industry that provides
        less than 2% of our needs in ten years?
        
        Most Bankers would laugh you out of their building if you sought a loan for large solar installation. Their decisions are based on “:Will they be able to pay it back”
        
        These days the government doesn’t blink an eye when a Trillion dollars goes down the drain. The government is not a profit making organization. It is a profit losing organization.
        
        What happens at your house when your checkbook says “empty” but your debt continues to grow. You go bankrupt.
        
        A wise use of available resources supplemented by renewable resources is the best route to take.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Solar was 0.02% in 2009. It contributed 0.03% in 2010.
        
        Solar has been growing at a rate of 65% per year. If it maintains that rate it will contribute 4.5% ten years from now.
        
        Now, that’s a misleading number because it does not include rooftop solar.
        
        Furthermore with the rapidly falling price of PV it is expected that installation rate will move to much above a 65% growth rate.
        
        —
        
        Fact is, private money is financing solar farms. Warren Buffett just bought Topaz Solar Farm and other financial institutions are investing in solar.
        
        Solar farms are not being built with government money.
        
        —
        
        Have you considered the possibility that US energy might have peaked and will now stay about level or decrease?
        
        Pay some attention to all the work that is going into efficiency. We’re on route to cut our electricity use for lighting by 75%. Appliances and electronics are becoming more efficient. California, by embracing efficiency, has kept its per capita electricity use flat for decades.
      - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
        
        you are apparently out of the loop.
        
        bankers and huge investors are putting a ton of money into solar. there has been a huge shift in this arena. your claims are from information from a decade ago or something.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      I dispute your arguments.
      
      We can build wind farms and install solar arrays incredibly quickly. This is well proven.
      
      Just to give a rough example, we can install enough solar panels on a roof in half a day to power an EV 15,000 miles per year.
      
      Very large wind farms are completed in less than two years. Sometimes in less than one year.
      
      —
      
      At least 70% of all American personal driving could be done with electricity. A combination of EVs and PHEVs along with serious improvements in ICEV efficiency could cut our oil usage about to the point where we could supply our own oil needs. Pumping at current levels.
      
      We could drill/pump at a higher rate and cut our oil imports, but we would only hasten the date at which we use up our reserves and become totally dependent on other countries.
      
      That, to me, seems very unwise.
Ross

It is deeply troubling that sensible energy and environmental policy is associated with one party. Fiscal conservatives alert to the dangers of special interests having undue influence should be appalled.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Smith-Jim/100001240399874 Smith Jim

I don’t understand why anyone is surprised by Romney’s statements. The only way to make Obama’s energy policy look bad is to flat out lie about it.
- Howard Burkhart
  
  You don’t have to lie-just say 5 Trillion in less then 4 years with no way to pay for it.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    What’s the source for the “5 Trillion in less than 4 years” claim, Howard?
    - ENRG
      
      Just go to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2010USrt_13rs1n;
      
      This is essence is the “checkbook”
      
      compare what we spent to what we took in.
      
      This is called bankruptcy.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        No meat in that sandwich.
        
        Where’s the numbers for $5 Trillion to pay for PBO’s energy program?
  - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
    
    that is, lie.
    
    every budget Obama has proposed has been focused on cutting debt.
    - ENRG
      
      President Obama’s budget proposal, S.Con Res. 41, was introduced by Senator Sessions of Alabama in order to give the Democrats a chance to vote on the President’s plan to dramatically raise spending and taxes,” commented Max Pappas, FreedomWorks Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy. “Unsurprisingly, the Obama budget received zero votes from either party, as it is absurdly unsustainable and indefensible
      - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
        
        continue to spread lies on here that add nothing to the discussion and confuse people and you will be banned. the actual story:
        
        “… the sponsor of the alternative, was using Obama’s top-line spending and revenue numbers as a budget proposal, without any specifics. On the House floor, Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) agreed that Mulvaney’s amendment was not, in fact, Obama’s entire budget proposal.
        
        ‘This is politics at its absolute worst: presenting something as the President’s budget without the policy detail, without the explanation to the American people about what’s in the President’s budget,” he said. “And as a result, he presents a very misleading version of what the President has asked us to do.'”
        
        I completely agree — politics a its worst.
        
        I’m sorry, but if EVERY member of the president’s party votes against something, do you think it’s really what the president proposed? Get real.
      - http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan
        
        by the way, the source for that information above is The Hill, which leans to the right: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/218931-house-clobbers-obama-budget-proposal-in-0-414-vote
Captivation

We seem to be in a cultural backslide. Technical and scientific progress is happening all around us, but it FEELS like 1955. Actually that’s not fair since the 50’s were a time of great scientific progress. So let me rephrase… it feels like we are moving to an era that looks like 1955 but without any progress.

Despite appearances, however, it is vital that we remind ourselves that scientific, technical, and social advancement is happening. It’s just hidden from view momentarily and will come into view around the next corner.