Speaking at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory today, Sen. Lamar Alexander proposed "launching a 5-year New Manhattan Project to put America firmly on the path to clean energy independence within a generation."

His "New Manhattan Project For Clean Energy Independence" proposals include:

1. Expanding use of plug-in electric cars and trucks
2. Make carbon capture and storage a reality for coal-burning power plants.
3. Make solar power cost competitive with power from fossil fuels.
4. Safely reprocess and store nuclear waste.
5. Make advanced biofuels cost-competitive with gasoline
6. Make new buildings green buildings.
7. Provide energy from fusion.

Regarding plug-in electrics, Alexander's proposes to use "smart meters" that would allow customers to use excess nighttime electric generating capacity to charge their vehicles. He notes that 60% of commuters travel 30 miles or less per day, and that plug-in electric/hybrid cars could make that trip without burning any gasoline at all. He estimates there is enough excess electric generating capacity to power three-fourths of our light vehicles.

One problem is that 60% of that comes from coal-fired power plants, at least in the TVA service region. It's similar elsewhere, and various other "dead-end" fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas are also used. Items two and three on his agenda address this concern to an extent.

Alexander also notes that TVA has excess nighttime nuclear generating capacity sufficient to power 8.7 million plug-in electrics. There are concerns about operating safety and nuclear waste disposal, though, which Alexander partially addresses with item four. But we've been struggling with the problem for decades, and there are no good solutions in sight.

Biofuels (item five) only prolong the use of internal combustion for propulsion. As sophisticated as our modern internal combustion engines have become, its' still a relatively primitive technology (as is the use of nuclear fission to boil water). But an argument can be made that biofuels can provide a "bridge" until better solutions can be found.

It's surprising that Alexander doesn't propose research and development of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen generating technology. Hydrogen seems like a viable solution to energy storage and distribution problems related to solar and other renewable power generation, and hydrogen fuel cells seem like a good replacement for internal combustion once that problem is solved.

Nobody can argue with items three and six, and the only question is why this isn't already obvious to energy policymakers.

The last item is the "holy grail" that gives Alexander's proposal some real Apollo/Manhattan Project panache. If I read the Wikipedia version of fusion correctly, though, the longest sustained megawatt-class reaction to date is .5 seconds, and estimates are that a commercially viable fusion reactor is fifty years and hundreds of billions of dollars away.

At any rate, you have to give Alexander credit for proposing something. He's light on details, such as what the bill would look like in Congress, how it would be funded, etc., but nobody else is proposing anything this comprehensive.

But despite his frequent and outspoken criticism of TVA for not cleaning up their coal act, he earns a score of only 33% from the League of Conservation voters. To his credit, that's up from 4% in 2004-2005.

The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy criticized Alexander's proposals for not including wind power, saying "it is probably the most competitive and most established technology available."

Former Knox County Clerk Mike Padgett, who is running in the Democratic Primary for Alexander's senate seat, says the proposals are an "election-year re-invention" and that Alexander is "pandering." Padgett's proposals focus on biofuels, including ethanol, and the price of gas.

Bob Tuke, the other senate candidate in the Democratic primary, had previously criticized Alexander for opposing the repeal of big oil tax breaks to fund alternative energy programs and then introducing similar alternative energy legislation that would "protect Big Oil taxpayer giveaways," in effect "trying to have it both ways." Tuke has not outlined an energy policy proposal.

Media reports: Knoxville News Sentinel, Nashville Tennessean

UPDATE: Padgett responds with "Eneregy 2.0"