Alexander has good reason to include EVs in his energy alternative

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
This fits nicely in the "all politics is local" department. Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander, not a major fan of the carbon-reduction programs envisioned by legislation now in Congress, yesterday included in an alternative-bill "blueprint" the goal of electrifying half the car and truck fleet within 20 years. It didn't occur to us immediately, but of course Alexander's state is hosting the Nissan electric vehicle venture, at the company's existing plant in Smyrna. The Department of Energy last month announced a $1.6 billion low-interest loan to the project, under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Nissan plans to produce the cars and advanced lithium-ion batteries.

Alexander can't be faulted for trying to boost a sector that would preserve jobs and create 1,300 new ones in his state in the next couple of years. And he is certainly not proposing only that. His blueprint features 100 new nuclear plants by 2030 and a mini-Manhattan Project for reprocessing and recycling spent nuclear fuel. The 104 nuclear plants now operating were built in a 20-year period, he observed -- and that's something we forget easily -- and so what is to stop us from doing that again?

The blueprint, which Alexander said would not be an actual bill -- he will "wait to see what the reaction is" -- also includes $8 billion in R&D on electric vehicle batteries, carbon capture and sequestration, biofuels, green buildings and more.

Whether this or any other Republican alternative gets any traction remains to be seen; there is certainly lots of room for alternatives to the Waxman-Markey House climate change bill to develop, especially since senators will not start acting on their own bills until September. The economy, continuing low natural gas prices, growing pressure with respect to China and India as carbon emitters and renewables manufacturing competitors, the seeming imperative of figuring out healthcare -- all of these could mean the climate change train veering off the track it appeared to be on.

And is it worthwhile mentioning the mild, gorgeous summer that Washington and some other places are having? Climate change science isn't about the weather in any given week, experts tell us, but miserable heat and humidity sure gave Al Gore a lot of traction back in the '80s, when he talked about it in Congress.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.platts.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1218

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page entry was written by Kathy Larsen and was published on July 14, 2009 10:10 AM ET.

Previous entry: T. Boone Pickens: cool, calm and in charge

Next entry: Sarah Palin slams cap-and-trade, (cyber)DC listens

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Archives

September 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30