McCain, Obama Representatives Talk Clean Carbon, Alternative Fuels in Energy Debate

Energy programs set out to move away from oil and coal, toward biofuels and clean-carbon technologies

Regina Lynch, Web Editor -- Design News, October 7, 2008

Energy advisors for presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama met at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Boston, MA last night to debate their candidates' energy policies on issues including supply, security and alternative fuels.

Scroll down for video clips of the representatives' closing arguments.

Both representatives agreed their candidates' plans are thematically similar. "What we have here are two responsive energy programs," said R. James Woolsey, venture partner and senior advisor with VantagePoint Venture Partners and former director of the C.I.A. Jason Grumet, founder/president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and chair of the Energy and Environment Policy Group for the Obama Presidential Campaign, said the main goal of both plans is ultimately finding an "affordable, reliable source of energy."

But Woolsey identified centralization as a key difference. McCain is focusing on a federal-based effort with a generic move toward alternative fuels, which Woolsey said is key to a successful separation from oil. Grumet named consistency and detail as two main strengths of Obama's plan, calling out McCain's Lexington Plan as a "fancy name for a two-and-a-half-page memo." He stressed Obama's focus on low-carbon and renewable standards and targeted McCain's choice of vice president, saying Palin is "not concerned with science."

Tom Ashbrook, host of NPR radio show "On Point" and moderator of the debate, was accompanied by Susan McGinnis, managing editor and news anchor for CleanSkies.tv and Geoff Carr, science editor for The Economist.

McGinnis asked when the representatives see fossil fuels no longer being part of the energy mix, keeping in mind the expense of nuclear and availability and scalability of some alternative fuels. Grumet outlined the need to diversify fuels and strengthen fuel economy standards, while Woolsey said the move away from liquid and toward electric "needs to be done in a generic way, with no picking and choosing."

Carr asked the representatives' opinions on natural gas and their stands on energy imports. Woolsey named natural gas as a "fine complement" to renewable fuels for a more steady flow of electricity to the grid, but said natural gas should be used as more of a partner for renewable fuels and there should be "no operating at the behest of the Russians." Grumet agreed additional dependence on fuels the country doesn't possess is a negative and called for natural gas to be brought down from Alaska via a pipeline that Obama has called for in the past.

When asked about their goals for energy independence, both advisors named corn-based fuel as still useful. Woolsey called for a generic move toward waste-based fuels but said if the only loss is starch via the use of corn-based fuels then they should still be part of the mix. Grumet said Obama recognizes corn-based fuels as a pioneer fuel, but the country needs to move quickly past it to sustainable biofuels such as algae and switchgrass.

Both advisors identified the importance of carbon capture and storage. Grumet touted Obama's $15 billion per year focus on carbon capture technologies, and Woolsey countered with McCain's $2 billion per year focus being all that is needed, with there just being a shift in detail and management choices between the two plans. Grumet agreed the plans are thematically the same but different in actuality, and stressed that Obama is a supporter of "truly zero carbon coal." Woolsey said he leaves the possibility open for coal-fire plants, at least in the interim.

Both advisors recognize the move to alternative energy sources as a difficult one, especially in light of the current state of the economy. Woolsey identified technology as our "only out," and said there are ways to focus penalties on carbon-emitting sources, with less penalty to natural gas and none to renewable or solar energy. Grumet said Obama views "pollution as a form of inefficiency" and the move, while not cheap and easy, will require a "different type of community" willing to take on the challenge. Both identified destroying the dependence on oil as the key strategic commitment.

And both representatives identified green technology and their candidates' energy plans as effective sources of economic stimulus. Woolsey identified drilling in Alaska as part of McCain's effort to reduce the country's financial dependence on outside fuel sources and imports, saying there is the need to move away from oil, but a change for the better will only happen with "some interim drilling." Grumet said Obama believes his plan for new energy technologies will "form the backbone for economic recovery."

The representatives also addressed how their candidates will encourage investment in the Smart Grid. "We have a dumb grid," said Grumet, "that does not tap the power of our sunny and windy cities." He identified the decoupling of energy supply and profit as the key to grid modernization. Woolsey named the need for a grid at a federal level, resilient against hacking, with the built-in capacity of vehicle-to-grid.

Woolsey identified McCain's plan to deploy 45 new nuclear power plants as "difficult," but focused on the candidate's plan for the generic encouragement of new technologies as a major strength. Grumet identified site sequestration spots for wind power and power lines across state lines as issues Obama is "still figuring out."

Both representatives discussed the natural gas portion of T. Boone Pickens' plan as half correct. Grumet and Woolsey both agreed with wind power as a solution but Grumet identified the need for a power sector and said a complete transition to natural gas is improbable. Woolsey said plug-in hybrids will be more cost-effective than fueling stations.