I'm sure Obama is for that. But if you'll visit the Obama thread you'll see why what he says he'll do for green energy is a moot point. He's patently unelectable. Doesn't do much good to have an energy policy when the GOP has your political epitaph planned-in-advanced down to every i dotted and t crossed.
I could give a fig what "the democrats" have rejected. Quite a lot of times the republicans will word-spin a Bill to make themselves look benevolent and then pork-barrel with unacceptable footnotes in order to get democrats to reject it, as they should. Net result is they look good and dems look bad.
I'm zigzagging past all that nonsense and getting right to the heart of the matter.
They rejected nuclear. Great. As well they and you should. Ever watch the Simpsons? All we need is one Homer at the control panel..
I am for Hydro, and solar. Wind is a bit unpractical unless it can be placed in reliable wind-zones. Plus it's unsightly. I think it's my least favorite of all the non-petrolium sources of energy.
Geothermal is the boy. Steam electric generators are some of the simplist and easiest sources of power there is...providing you have a steady heat source. I'd say all in all that the earth's internal heat could be relied on to be steady into the next Century or two...lol...or million...
At bubbling vents right at the surface all you do is add water, generate steam which turns a turbine that shoots out current. No offshore platforms, expensive drills, huge manpower, pollution, unbelievable maintainence problems, environmental disasters...nada...just easy, clean energy right on tap over a full 1/3 of the continental US.
And it just sits there even though scientists and developers have been BEGGING the goverment to fund development..
Bubble bubble bubble... Yellowstone alone could power half the US I'd wager.
But no, we need to keep after finite, dirty, nasty, National Security and environmental-threatening oil..