Times staff writer Edward Silver posts this detailed look at Sen. Barack Obama's proposals on energy -- and which companies could benefit most from the candidate's blueprint if he wins the White House.

For Barack Obama, climate change is change we can believe in.

Speakers at the Democrats’ convention this week, by and large, have taken as dim a view of fossil fuels as the Iraq war. If you were quaffing your brew at each mention of "alternative energy" from the podium, you’d have a lot of recycling to do by now. The green theme climaxes tonight, with environmental hero Al Gore setting the stage for the candidate’s address.

Since he launched his campaign, Obama has offered remarkably detailed proposals and demonstrated fluency in the language of energy and carbon. He promises a broad agenda aimed at growing sustainable industries quickly. That means jobs, profits and a balm for the planet, but it’s a riddle when, or if, that growth would offset the financial costs of change.

If he takes the helm, Obama’s blueprint may be welcomed by an admiring Congress. Then comes the hard part: implementing it.

Like rival John McCain, Obama proposes a market in permits to emit greenhouse gases, commonly termed "cap and trade." His approach is stricter, however, and his final goal -- an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 -- more ambitious. Even though emissions limits are defined by the government, cap and trade is widely seen as a fair, market-driven way to, in Obama’s words, make "dirty energy expensive."

Coal generates half the country’s electricity, but with carbon costs imposed, new plants won't be built. Under Obama, investors may shun coal producers that only sell domestically while favoring those that feed booming demand overseas, such as Peabody Energy Corp. Meanwhile, firms that crack the engineering challenge of burying coal emissions underground would get more than a few contracts.

Assuming that a Congress renews key tax incentives, utilities would hurry to add renewables to their mix, playing into the hands of wind energy specialists such as Vestas and solar companies like Energy Conversion Devices Inc., Sunpower Corp. and private BrightSource Energy.

Obama is not a friend of nuclear power but urges the industry to solve its chronic waste storage and other problems. With coal in the doghouse, though, the pressure to go nuclear would build. That’s where natural gas comes in. In his energy factsheet, Obama makes special mention of the cleaner-burning fossil fuel, the No. 2 source of U.S. electricity. He promotes drilling in the Barnett shale in Texas, among other places. After all, the Illinois senator doesn’t see renewables contributing more than 10% of our power supply by 2012, and even that may be a reach.

If natgas is a fossil fuel even Democrats can love, politics may favor such players as Chesapeake Energy Corp., Devon Energy Corp. and T. Boone Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels Corp. . . .