Obama's Clean Power Plan is Ideal but Impractical

President Obama's new countermeasure on global warming mandates the states to reduce their carbon dioxide emission by 32% compared to that of 2005 by the end of 2030. Currently the United States is the leading nation in the world that emits CO2. Among the 51 states, Texas is the largest producer of carbon dioxide due to its oil and gas industry. Hence the Clean Power Plant is expected to have a long-term and major impact on Texas economy.
In my opinion, the plan is well intended but not practical. On the one hand, Texas will be faced with more severe consequences of global warming, such as increased flooding and strength of hurricanes. On the other hand, Texas' economy relies heavily on oil and gas industry. Not only do oil and gas companies contributes significantly to Texas' GDP, but the three major airlines based in Texas (Southwest, American, United's Houston branch) are also dependent on fossil fuels. Therefore, the provisions of the Clean Power Plan will hurt Texas' economy badly.
Additionally, this plan is no better than keeping using fossil fuels. A provision of the plan allows the government to sell the privilege of emitting carbon dioxide. While the big companies have more than enough money to bid the emission right, such policy would put more burdens on smaller businesses, which worsens the unemployment rate. Moreover, this provision does not help raising the awareness of environmental protection because the big companies can emit as much CO2 as they want provided that they can pay for it.
The other provision of the clean power plan encourages the states to employ renewable energies, such as solar energy and wind turbines. Technically, solar and wind are not stable energy sources (in case of cloudy weather and windless days), which are not adequate to provide a stable electrical grid for a state as large as Texas. Secondly, solar energy is converted into electricity by photo voltaic cells, which themselves are made of toxic materials. In order to convert photons into electrical energy, semi-conductors must be used. Many solar cells contain toxic compounds of selenium. Once decommissioned, these solar cells will post new threats to the environment.
A more practical approach would be refining the use of fossil fuels. For example, fuel cells use catalysts and electrodes to oxidize fuels and generate electricity. It is more efficient and cleaner than burning fossil fuels and more stable than solar and wind energy. The fuel cell is a mature technology as well. Since 1970s, many spacecrafts (for example, the Apollo and space shuttles) have been powered by fuel cells. Another technology is carbon dioxide capture, which runs flue gas and basic solution into absorber and then strip the CO2 from absorber liquid product. In this way, CO2 can be isolated before it is emitted to the atmosphere. From the perspective of an engineering student, I believe that optimizing the use of fossil fuel with fuel cells and the CO2 capture suits large states like Texas better than the alternate energies mentioned in Obama's plan.