Barack Obama has chosen to run his campaign based on the idea of hope, an emotional word which is generally not derived from rational thought. Hope differs from optimism in the sense that optimism is based in large part on existing facts, whereas hope is based in large part on fantasy. So while it may be nice to hope that you win the lottery, only those who are removed from reality would actually feel optimistic of their chances. Barack Obama’s recent speech in Michigan on energy is akin to feeling optimistic when buying a lottery ticket, yet it is clearly based on hope. The hope I am referring to however, is not the hope that his energy policy would be a success, Obama is merely hopeful that the American people will not see how ridiculous it is.

The three main components of Obama’s plan are:

• Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.
• Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.
• Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

What exactly are the renewable sources Obama is referring to? Presumably he is referring to corn based ethanol which is the nations largest source of renewable energy. The problem with corn based ethanol however is three fold:

1. It takes more energy to produce it than it releases when burned
2. It can only be shipped in fuel burning trucks, as pipelines similar to those used for oil would contaminate it rendering it useless
3. A car running on 10% ethanol has a mile per gallon reduction of %4 to %5, resulting in more fuel being burnt to cover the same distance.

The above issues do not even take into account the ludicrous idea of burning a food source in order to make fuel. But let’s pretend for a moment Obama does not actually believe that an increased mandate on ethanol would actually be good energy policy, despite all the facts to the contrary. We will go under the assumption for the moment this is merely campaign rhetoric designed to increase his support with the Midwest farmer who would stand to gain millions of dollars a piece in tax subsidies, in order to flood the market with an inefficient product which would never sell under its own merits.

The other two components of Obama’s plan when looked at separately, certainly appear to have some merit, at least environmentally speaking. Had John McCain offered one of those components as a solution, while Barack Obama offered the other, pundits would spend the rest of this week arguing over which would make for a better policy. Seeing both policies in the same energy plan is somewhat curious, as they seem to be in direct conflict with each other.

On the one hand Obama wishes to increase the amount of plug-in hybrids on the road within the next six years, while on the other hand he intends to reduce the amount of electricity in the next 12 years. Plug-in hybrids however require electricity to run, hence the name “plug-in”. It is estimated that plug-in hybrids would increase residential consumption of electricity by 30 to 40%, where then would Obama cut 15% from America’s electricity demand?

For the record, I am in support of plug-in hybrids, and believe them to be the best possible alternative based upon current technology. When combined with nuclear power, plug-in hybrids would offer the cleanest, most efficient means of transportation possible. My support for plug-in hybrids however rests on my optimism that this is an attainable goal which would result in a cleaner environment. Senator Obama’s expectation of reducing electricity consumption within 12 years rests on his hope that the American people are too busy applauding his speeches to listen to the words.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Barack Obama, Election 2008, Energy, Features, Global Warming, Politics