Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Energy Forum Clinton versus Sanders on Energy Policy

Sanders Will Ban Fracking

Interesting article about the energy policies of both Democratic candidates. Sanders proposes banning all fracking and a massive switch away from nuclear and fossil fuels to solar, wind, and hydro power. Clinton favors fracking so we have natural gas instead of coal while we make the switch to better nuclear power generation.

Of course Sanders policy has sustainable base load supply only in the form of hydro, which is near maximum capacity now and could only supply a small fraction of the power we use. His model has most of the East Coast freezing to death on winter nights.

Actually, we could be looking at one form of fusion in the very near term. Like within the next 20 years. Boron fusion is looking very good: Super high temperature Boron-11 + 1 proton => Carbon with 6 neutrons and 6 protons => spontaneously becomes 3 Helium atoms with 3 MEV each AND NO NEUTRONS! (So your reactor can't become radioactive and the only waste product is Helium you could use to fill party balloons.) Several groups just about have this working now.

Sanders might like to ban fracking but it's unlikely he'll be able to.
This is largely the problem with Sanders.
There is plenty of room for wind and solar to grow and in fact they are growing in leaps and bounds, Other countries are able to back away from nuclear and fossil fuels already for their energy needs and there is no reason we can't eventually get on to that bandwagon too.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use those renewable energy technologies to the fullest extent possible. In particular, on hot sunny days we should have enough solar to meet 100% of our energy use, at least in the Southwest. We could even export excess power to other parts of the country that are usually cloudy or have a storm blocking the sun.

But the problem is at night. You need some sort of a base load generating capability, to fill in when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. We also might not want giant windmills covering the entire country, especially if fusion is going to make them all obsolete.

What do you do for base generation until fusion? I think we desperately need natural gas until we have fusion. So I think we really need to think twice about a guy who says we stop all use of it with no other source of power.

You mean like the problem with any president who has to confront the economic power that defends its interests?
He is taking a real position, as opposed to Ms. Clinton whose platforms reads like a horoscope- it is vague enough to apply to either side of a question.
The important thing is that he has defined his position. Whether or not he'll be able to achieve it (just as Obama was unable to achieve so many things he would have liked to put in place) is less important than stating you are willing to really try and that you really have a position on the question.

I prefer someone who is able to see and accommodate all sides of an issue. Yes, fracking needs to be better regulated and controlled. Hopefully someday, like the procurement of whale oil, fracking will become unnecessary. But that day has not come yet and it is not the President's job to "Ban" anything he doesn't like and promising to ban something to win votes is simply dishonest.

I'll bet your joking about saying anything to win! (BTW - if that were to help him win, it wouldn't be only the candidate that doesn't like it, it would be the majority of the people).
In the vernacular - shyte or get off the pot.
Clear position and honesty win in my book. Obfuscation (a Clinton art form) do not.

Never said nuthin' about "saying anything to win."

What I said was that making promises he can't keep is dishonest.

Do I think Madame Clinton is "honest"? Nope, I think she is a more savvy politician. Obfuscation is a handy tool for politicians.

By that reasoning you could have said that ANY presidential candidate shouldn't say what they think because they can't do anything to change it?
Bernie is not making promises. He's stating a position.
Like I said: we know where he stands. Obfuscation is for those who are afraid to take a stand.

A lot of this figures into the new narrative, the one about how Sanders would be a "kindly but ineffectual leader who couldn't get anything done" if he gets elected.
Balderdash, I say.

Sure, he would NOT get a lot of his utopian ideas past the embryo stage, but then isn't that true of a lot of presidents? But he would set the tone and stimulate the kind of development that would look forward rather than staunchly preserve that "whale oil" segment of the economy.
And even a Bernie Sanders would eventually accept the reality, which he has done many times in the past.

Unfortunately, he's stating a position that just can't work. Is he too stupid to see that, or does he understand the problem and is willing to lie to people to get elected?

I think Clinton has a much more honest position, namely that we should stop adding carbon to the atmosphere but we need to add a little more until the technology is there not to add more.

I like to think people can understand that some problems have complex answers.