We were expecting a little better from a story called U.S. Energy Industry Is Wary of Obama, although we think almost all industries are wary of a major change in political authority. Priorities are bound to shift and they have to hope it isn’t away from them. But this story seems to want to go further in its Cassandra-like warning:
President-elect Barack Obama hasn't appointed a single person from the dirty energy sector for his energy team. I'm referring to the oil, coal and nuclear energy industries. This has these industries concerned albeit their statements to the contrary.
Dirty energy sector! We’ll have to have words with writer Dave Giza on that drive-by slur. But when it comes to explaining how nuclear may be facing difficulties, the result is some pretty translucent milk:
Obama said during the presidential campaign that nuclear energy has a role in the nation's energy future but also pointed to its high costs and concerns about properly disposing waste. Dr. [Steven] Chu's most recent job was head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, which began as one of the government's premier nuclear research facilities and still does fusion and radiation research. Chu signed a paper last summer along with the heads of other national energy labs, extolling the importance of nuclear power's role for the U.S. and the world.
None of that sounds all that dire and is actually pretty accurate. In fact, if anything, Giza’s article seems intended to keep everyone calm, including coal folks:
Others believe that Obama will be lax regarding the regulation of coal-fired power plants. After all, coal is the cheapest energy source next to conservation. The coal mining industry employs more than 500,000 people in a direct and indirect fashion.
We wonder who those “others” are – you may as well say that “others” believe the world is flat.
We hoped for better. We’ll have to settle for being consigned to the dirty energy sector.
Susquehanna’s towers. Dirty, oh so dirty.
Comments
In reply to a comment on his article, Dave Giza says, "...I wouldn't completely eliminate coal, oil or nuclear energy. Let us have the complete energy enchilada along with conservation." (URL: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/263906#tab=comments&sc=0&local=)
This suggests the "Gizan taxonomy of energy" may look like the SAT exam question: "clean" is to "-------" like "dirty" is to "enchilada".