Blue science and red science
The amount of power produced by wind turbines has indeed doubled since Obama took office, from 52,000 gigawatt-hours in 2009 to 139,000 gigawatt-hours over the last 12 months. Net solar power generation rose to 2,400 gigawatt-hours from 900 gigawatt-hours in 2009. Since Americans consume 4 million gigawatt-hours of electricity each year, that means wind power contributed 3.5 percent and solar power less than 0.1 percent of the total.
What about Obama’s claim to have opened up millions of acres to hydrocarbon exploration? In its first three years, according to the Bureau of Land Management, the Bush administration leased 8.8 million acres for oil exploration and production, compared to 5.3 million for the first three years of the Obama administration. The Clinton administration leased 11.4 million acres in its first three years.
The Bush administration saw 9,276 new wells drilled in its first three years, compared to the 9,693 under the Obama administration. But 15,095 new wells began production as oil prices rose during the last three years of the Bush administration.
Regarding nuclear power, in 2010 the Obama administration proposed tripling federal loan guarantees for building new plants, from the Bush administration’s $18 billion to $54 billion.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Blue science: http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/abortionist-summons-ambulance-for-patient-whos-fine/
davidk on November 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Are we talking about science or spending/corporate welfare???
CW on November 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Blue science?
Hahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
darwin on November 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Purple science?
tommy71 on November 23, 2012 at 7:24 PM
All the article did was describe each party’s platform; it didn’t analyze the platforms, and it certainly didn’t support the above conclusion, which comes out of the blue at the end of the article.
Baerwulf on November 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Actually it was Bush who provided the first federal money for stem cell research.
Not that I agree with it..just pointing out that the whole “repubs are anti science” shtick is bogus.
Mimzey on November 23, 2012 at 7:56 PM
good we have smart congressmen like todd akin in the congressional science comitee to defend us from blue science! /
nathor on November 23, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Hardly equivalent to “green energy” boondoggles, given that nuclear energy is at least known to work, and to produce energy at a reasonable price. It sounds more like an attempt to rectify the current situation where nuclear energy has been effectively blocked by environmentalists for specious reasons. Nuclear plants are not cheap to build, but they’ve been made far more expensive than necessary due to extreme over-regulation.
You would think a “science consultant” would notice that one type of energy production is far more reasonable based on science and technology than the other. It appears that the desired conclusions of the article trumps actual scientific merit, much like the article asserts that politics trumps science for both parties.
There Goes The Neighborhood on November 24, 2012 at 2:30 AM