Samuelson says Obama is misguided on energy (doesn't mention nuclear)

Robert Samuelson addresses President Obama's energy "pipe dreams" in a Washington Post column:

Obama's energy pipe dreams

He says this:

"Unless we shut down the economy, we need fossil fuels. More efficient light bulbs, energy-saving appliances, cars with higher gas mileage may all dampen energy use. But offsetting these savings will be more people (391 million vs. 305 million), more households (147 million vs. 113 million), more vehicles (297 million vs. 231 million) and a bigger economy (almost double in size)."

[There's a lesson here about population growth -- for another time.]

"Although wind, solar and biomass are assumed to grow as much as 10 times faster than overall energy use, they provide only 11 percent of supply in 2035, up from 5 percent in 2008."

He goes on to discuss the drawbacks of biofuel and wind power.

At no point does he discuss nuclear power (neither, for that matter, did the Prez.)

If Obama's serious about an energy future, he and his administration have to STRONGLY encourage conservation (and new technology) with a carbon tax, and you turn to the one generation source that provides a lot of energy -- nuclear; standard large plants, or maybe the Gates/Toshiba neighborhood nukes. Nuclear is wedge 9 of the Socolow and Pacala stabilization wedges, deservedly.

The Stabilization Wedges Web site

A plan to keep carbon in check (pdf)

Wedge 9: "Add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal"