Tag: Energy Policies

The New Energy Bill: What Is The Truth?

The following is a letter that I got as an email from the Friends of the US Chamber Of Commerce:

Today is Earth Day – a day when many Americans make resolutions to voluntarily conserve more energy and work toward cleaning up their local environment.

Unfortunately, some politicians in Congress are using Earth Day to ultimately push more taxes on American employers and working families.

And they’re doing it all in the name of the environment.

As we emailed you last week, President Obama has already admitted his “climate bill” will mean higher taxes on energy use for everybody in America.

Now, Congressmen Waxman and Markey have proposed a new bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions and create regulations on everything from:

New homes “with slanted roofs,” …to meet a “solar reflectance” standard if they use “fiberglass asphalt-shingle roofing.”

…furnaces, laundry machines, dishwashers, “showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals,” even jacuzzis.

Jacuzzis?

We’re all in favor of going green, but not at the cost of American jobs, economic recovery…and household appliances.

The talking points are being passed out for the coming debate.  But what is really said in the new energy bill?  Is this just the same “fear tactic” that the GOP has been using since the Obama admin came to power?

The Obama administration on Wednesday called a Democratic House proposal to reduce greenhouse gases and tackle climate change a “jobs bill” and an investment in new energy priorities, rejecting Republican criticism that it will undermine the economy by increasing costs for consumers.

Top environmental advisers to President Barack Obama broadly endorsed the draft bill that would cap greenhouse gases and reduce the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels. However, the administration officials cautioned that the White House will work with House Democrats to fine tune the legislation in the coming weeks.

Energy secretary Chu acknowledged that limits on greenhouse gases would increase energy production costs — both gasoline and electricity — but he said overall consumer energy bills would not increase because the legislation also is designed to spur increased efficiency. “Costs would actually be held constant,” he maintained.

The administration’s energy cost estimates are based on the government distributing 40 percent of the money collected from auctioning credits back to households to offset energy-related energy expenses. The House bill has yet to work out a emissions credit allocation proposal.

Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are negotiating among themselves on whether to scale back legislation that would impose a mandatory limit on greenhouse gases, with some conservatives and moderates calling for electric utilities to be given free pollution allowances and for more modest cuts in the targets for reducing emissions.

So it begins……as usual the idea and the proposal to help the environment was all talk….the government will do what it always does……come up with an impotent environmental bill.

The debate is falling into the same line as past debates—it happened in the 70’s, if all the good ideas had been implemented then we would not be having this conversation today.  Will it happen again?  Looks like it is headed down the same path with little resistance.

2009 Anal-Ocity

There has been a wealth of idiotic statements recently, but I could not find one that was so anal that I had to post on it……that was then…this is now!

This anal statement is from the mouth of Rep. Shimkus, Republican from Illinois.  He is so against the Obama energy bill that he made this observation:

“largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress—impeachment, two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above activities that have happened.”

OMG!  It is worse than 9/11?  Does that sound like someone who should be deciding the future of the country?  I am sorry but the GOP needs to muzzle some of their members or they will continue to lose support among the people as they see just how out of touch the Party is.

More On Cap And Trade Energy Plan

Found this analysis in the Green Party’s website.

After the Clinton and Bush administrations refused to take minimal steps to confront climate change, at least the Obama administration has offered modest plans and intends to seek a new post-Kyoto international treaty. However, given scientists’ recent warnings of accelerated warming, Greens oppose carbon emissions trading schemes such as the one proposed by President Obama, asserting that permits for polluting companies to trade emission permits are ineffective at curbing global climate change.

“The failure of emissions trading in Europe over the past three years proves cap-and-trade plans are full of loopholes, are vulnerable to widespread abuse, and threaten the air quality in communities near industries that buy credits. The solution must involve drastic cuts in greenhouse gases, reduction of fossil fuel consumption (especially car traffic), carbon taxes, energy conservation, and new jobs in conservation, retrofitting, and cultivation of safe, clean energy sources. There is no way to solve the global warming crisis without profound changes to our economy and way of life,” said Budd Dickinson, energy engineer and co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.

The Green Party has offered a set of ‘First 100 Days’ action for the new administration (http://www.gp.org/committees/ecoaction/documents/First_100_Days.pdf). Green Parties throughout the world have urged developed countries to commit to domestic reductions of at least 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, in comparison with 1990 emission levels, and support conversion to a “low or zero carbon society.” (“Global Greens, representing 70 Green Parties and Green groups, issue declaration on reduction of greenhouse gases,” Green Party press release, December 7, 2007, http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_12_07.shtml).

The Lie Of “Clean Coal”

We are hearing a lot in the media about the use of “clean coal”; even the president is pushing this concept…but people…that is all that it is…a concept…..and above all it is a lie…there is NO such thing as “clean coal”.

The project’s goal is to test and develop affordable technology, on a commercial scale, that can remove 90 percent of emissions produced by coal plants. Chu said he thinks that the plant — which would be built with a group of private coal and utility companies known as the FutureGen Alliance — will move forward with some changes that have not yet been determined and will become a part of larger “portfolio” of research plants developed with other countries.

The FutureGen plant is expected to create jobs, and backers are currently pushing it as a stimulus project that could employ as many as 11,000 workers. The alliance must compete for the stimulus funds, but Chu’s support adds significant momentum to the effort.

There are a few testing ways to clean coal emissions, but that does not make coal a clean source of energy.  One technique is called carbon sequestration and storage (CSS).
CCS technologies attempt to capture carbon dioxide (CO2)from the waste stream of coal power stations and transport and bury it in underground reservoirs.

The problem with CCS, in a nutshell, is that it is too little, too late, too expensive, too risky, and it displaces other solutions that can do the job.

CCS has very few of the attributes needed to provide a solution and moves us in the wrong direction. CCS is still in the testing phase and will take a decade or two before it can be implemented in actual working power plants, and then still further decades before it could be scaled up to operate on large numbers of coal plants around the globe. That is too late to change the course of our energy system away from carbon, and too late to prevent emissions crossing a tipping point.

Demonstration CCS projects all plan to operate close to underground storage sites. One of the problems of scaling up CCS is that most coal power plants are not near appropriate storage sites and so very expensive infrastructure would need to be built to transport the captured carbon dioxide. This means that costs of CCS will increase as it is scaled up and the transport infrastructure costs mount.

CCS is too expensive. It will substantially increase the cost of building coal plants (perhaps a near doubling of plant cost, according to the US Department of Energy) and therefore increase the cost of electricity also. The energy required to remove CO2 from the coal plant stream is also substantial and would consume up to 40% of the energy used by the plant.

Thus, coal plants fitted with CCS would require more fossil fuel inputs, and the prices of these inputs can only increase as time goes on and carbon is more fully costed.

The costs and risks of CCS will be passed on to the public, whereas renewables and efficiency aren’t exposed to these costs and risks. The costs of research and testing of CCS are being borne in substantial part by the taxpayer, not by the already heavily subsidised coal industry. Australia subsidises coal over renewables research by a huge margin and the gap is increasing. The risks of long-term storage of CO2 are so great that no company will take on the liability and many are seeking to limit their legal liability to a mere 10 years.
CCS provides a means for the coal industry to continue reaping the profits while passing on the risks and costs to the public.

CCS delays action to reduce emissions at a time when we can no longer afford to wait, and it displaces those solutions that can work now and have a lasting impact. WWF’s notion of so-called “clean coal” is an oxymoronic vision of Australia’s energy future that will derail real efforts to confront climate change if we let it.

Enough said?

Drill Baby, Drill

Does not take long for the vultures to swoop in, huh?

The U.S. Interior Department, acting in President Bush’s final days in office, proposed on Friday opening up 130 million acres off of California’s coast to drilling for oil and natural gas, including areas off Humboldt and Mendocino counties and from San Luis Obispo south to San Diego.

After a hands-off policy for a quarter-century, the administration submitted plans to sell oil and gas leases for most of the U.S. coast, from the Gulf of Maine to Chesapeake Bay and the Outer Banks of North Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast.

New drilling also was proposed in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, one of the nation’s most plentiful sources of fish, and the Arctic Ocean.

Washington, Oregon and protected parts of Florida were excluded along with waters off San Francisco Bay that lie within national marine sanctuaries.

On Friday, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups greeted the news with praise, saying it is time for domestic energy supplies to be released from the moratorium.

Let the people see how many jobs were created by this…..Let the people see how long it takes to get this stuff to market.  Let the people see how much this will cost them in tax breaks.  Do not cook the numbers, just give the facts without the bullshit spin, ok?

Is Coal Based Power In Trouble?

An environmental review board has shot down the EPA approval of a new coal plant, stating that the Environment Protection Agency needs to come up with nationwide standards for dealing with carbon dioxide. The decision will cause lengthy and stricter rules, making the investment in expensive coal plants substantially riskier.

Therefore, the money will go into alternative energy, like solar or wind energy. The Environmental Appeals Boards’ decision to send the coal plans back to EPA with instructions to come up with standards was not a legal victory exactly, but the result is practically the same. Basically, the agency’s regional office has to at least consider whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, before it gives a green light to build the plant located in Utah.

Furthermore, the Board’s decision will delay the building of coal-fired power plants across the country, long enough for the Obama administration to determine its policy on coal, according to David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, the one which made the petition to the Board in the first place.


This is the latest setback for coal plants, which emit far more carbon dioxide than any other natural gases or other power plants. Last year, Kansas state regulators denied a permit to a coal plant on the grounds of its carbon dioxide emissions. However, there are some voices that say the Clean Air Act is not well structured to regulate greenhouse gases. Anyway, it could still be used to regulate greenhouse gases while the new climate legislation appears.

For Voters On Environmental Issues

Just as a soldier needs to be well armed to enter into combat, a voter needs all the ammo available to be well armed with knowledge.

Climate Change

We face economic, humanitarian and environmental crises from unchecked global climate change, including the loss of important water sources that help quench the needs of our industry, agriculture and homes. Our coastal cities will also be threatened by rising sea levels, and the frequency and severity of storms are predicted to increase.

Solution: We need to pass a comprehensive bill on climate change to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as the world’s leading scientists of the IPCC have prescribed.

Obama’s Plan: Obama supported legislation to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and has a plan to achieve that through a market-based cap-and-trade system.

McCain’s Plan: McCain co-sponsored the first bill in the Senate calling for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, in 2003. He supports action on climate change, but his proposals fall far short of what is recommended by scientists. His plan only calls for a 60 percent drop below 1990 levels by the year 2050.

Coal

Half of Americans get their energy from coal, but it is the dirtiest of our energy sources, and the extraction, cleaning and burning of it has caused major environmental and health problems.

Solution: We need to end our use of coal and instead use cleaner, renewable sources of energy. We should not be supporting “clean coal” technology or coal-to-liquids fuels because these do nothing to address the destructive practices of coal extraction, including mountaintop removal mining.

Obama’s Plan: Obama has proposed investing $150 billion over 10 years in renewables, but this includes so-called “clean coal” technology. He also was the co-sponsor of the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, which he later “clarified,” saying he would only support liquefying coal if it emitted 20 percent less carbon than conventional fuels.

McCain’s Plan: McCain is also a supporter of “clean coal” technologies and wants to spend $2 billion annually investing in it. He has said he wants to “find a way to use our coal resources without emitting excessive greenhouse gases.”

Renewable Energy

As we face dwindling supplies and increasing environmental harm from fossil fuels like oil and coal, not enough attention and resources are being directed toward developing and implementing renewable energy projects.

Soluiton: Cut our dependence on energy sources that cause carbon emissions and instead focus our resources on clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

Obama’s Plan: Obama’s plan would double federal research money for renewable energy, would aim to get 25 percent of our electricity from clean sources by 2025 and would create a clean technology venture capital fund. Obama supported renewables in the Senate, making it back for a key vote (that McCain failed to vote on) during the primary campaign.

McCain’s Plan: In both 1994 and 1999, McCain voted against more money for renewable energy, including solar. In 2005 he voted against legislation that would have required utilities to get 10 percent of their power from renewable sources. In 2007 he missed every vote on renewable energy. He is against subsidies for wind and solar energy, although he is in favor of subsidies for nuclear power.

Biofuels

With the price of gas rising, many people are looking to biofuels, such as ethanol, as a replacement. But growing food for fuel has caused the price of commodities like corn to rise and has increased the use of water and pesticides, causing more environmental harm.

Solution: Explore the development of fuels that are created from waste products and other nonfood items.

Obama’s Plan: Obama’s plan calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the United States each year by 2022 and 60 billion gallons of biofuels to be used in the country each year by 2030.

McCain’s Plan: McCain used to be against ethanol but is now in favor of it, although he is not in favor of government subsidies for it. He also favors the development of “second generation” fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which wouldn’t compete with food crops.

Fuel Efficiency and Home “Greening”

While there is an increasing recognition that we need to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of energy, there has been little talk about how much money we can save and how much emissions we can cut by increasing efficiency.

Solution: _Raise energy efficiency and fuel efficiency standards and help people save money by saving energy and lowering their carbon footprints.

Obama’s Plan: Obama’s plan has a goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent in the next 10 years and providing energy incentives for conservation. He voted yes on comprehensive energy legislation that included raising automobile fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020.

McCain’s Plan: McCain has repeatedly voted against raising efficiency standards and still opposes setting a specific target for an increase in fuel efficiency standards. McCain didn’t show up when the Senate voted and approved comprehensive energy legislation that set a deadline to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020.

Water

We face a water crisis from global warming, pollution, scarcity and privatization. In the next 10 years, 36 U.S. states will be facing water scarcity. Municipalities are strapped for money to maintain and repair aging infrastructure as funding from the federal government has fallen 66 percent since 1991. This has opened the door for the privatization of public water sources, causing rates to rise and services to diminish.

Solution: We need full funding from the federal government to protect and clean up water sources, stop the privatization of municipal water, and ensure adequate funding of our water infrastructure.

Obama’s Plan: Obama voted for on an amendment that would include $900 million for flood management and pollution caused by runoff from roads. Obama supports full funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which helps states keep their water clean and safe.

McCain’s Plan: While in Congress, McCain cast 10 votes against clean water, which also were against drinking water protection and enforcement, controlling microbes in water, and money for water pollution control. He supported delaying funds for leaking underground storage tanks and allowing municipalities to set their own standards for toxic waste.

Oil Drilling

As Democrats and Republicans talk about solutions to rising gas prices and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, there has been renewed interest in offshore oil drilling and drilling in ecologically pristine areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Solution: New offshore permits and drilling in ANWR should be taken off the table, as they would do nothing to ease the strain of drivers struggling with rising prices.

Obama’s Plan: In 2006, Obama rejected efforts to open up 8 million acres off the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana for oil and gas drilling. He has also been against drilling in ANWR. However, this summer he said he would reconsider lifting the ban on offshore drilling if it were part of a larger energy bill.

McCain’s Plan: McCain has recently come out in favor of new offshore drilling permits. He does not support opening up ANWR to drilling — but his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, does.

Air

Coal-burning power plants, vehicle emissions and other pollutants threaten air quality and health.

Solution: We need to phase out coal plants and strengthen the Clean Air Act to make sure corporations are accountable to the communities where they operate.

Obama’s Plan: In the Senate, Obama helped to stop Bush’s rollbacks on the Clean Air Act, which would have increased industrial emissions of mercury and sulfur. And he fought a Bush administration rule that would have delayed meaningful reductions in mercury emissions from power plants for 20 more years.

McCain’s Plan: McCain voted to squash an amendment that was intended to reinstate the mandate to control toxic emissions from motor vehicles. He also voted yes on the Nickles-Heflin amendment, which would handcuff the EPA’s ability to enforce all Clean Air Act requirements and limit citizen suits.

Nuclear Energy

As awareness about global warming has increased, the nuclear industry is trying to rebrand nuclear power as a clean, renewable source of energy.

Solution: Nuclear power is not a clean or safe form of energy and should not be given government subsidies.

Obama’s Plan: Obama has said that he supports nuclear power if it is clean and safe, but he has not defined what it would take to make nuclear power and its waste clean and safe. He is against the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and has not specifically called for building any nuclear power plants.

McCain’s Plan: McCain is in favor of nuclear power as an energy source for the United States, and his plan calls for building 45 new nuclear power plants in the country by 2030. He would use money raised from auctioning emissions permits for his global warming plan to spend on R&D for nuclear power. He is in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca

Green Jobs

The economy is tanking and global warming emissions continue to rise despite warnings from leading scientists about the threats of climate change. A green jobs program could help tackle both of these problems at once, but action needs to come from the federal government to jump-start it.

Solution: We need a federal initiative that would invest $100 billion over the next two years to help create 2 million new jobs in clean energy products and services. Such a program would provide good-paying jobs for middle-class Americans, help lift people out of poverty, help increase energy efficiency and reduce global warming emissions.

Obama’s Plan: Obama would use revenue from auctioning emissions permits from his global warming plan to help develop cleaner energy sources, create green jobs and help lower-income people pay for their energy bills. He also seeks to create a Clean Energy Jobs Corps and Green Job Corps for disadvantaged youth. His plan would create 5 million new green jobs.

McCain’s Plan: McCain has said he is interested in “building the infrastructure for a non-carbon energy future.” However, he missed a key vote in the Senate that would have provided around $5 billion for renewable energy, energy efficiency and green jobs.

McCain On Energy Policy

Let’s change the tone of the posts for awhile.  The Economy has had enough coverage for now.  Presidential candidate McCain has been going around talking about changes in the energy policies if he is elected.  Let’s look at his track record.

During the presidential debate, Sept. 26, John McCain claimed, “I voted for alternate fuel all my time… No one can be opposed to alternate energy, no one.” But John McCain’s own record suggests he may be confused about how he has voted, not just once or twice, but 23 times against renewable energy.

In 1992, McCain voted against ending debate on the Energy Bill, which included provisions to encourage energy conservation and increase domestic energy production. (In other words, McCain supported an attempt to filibuster that bill along partisan lines.)

A few years later in 1999, McCain used Senate procedures to oppose an amendment that would have increased funding for energy supply and research and development activities for renewable energy sources.

In May 2001, McCain voted with George W. Bush against establishing tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction, and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings.

The following year, McCain voted again with George W. Bush against an amendment to require utilities to generate 10 percent of electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. In that same energy package on a different measure, McCain voted for an amendment that would allow retail electric suppliers to avoid strong federal renewable energy standards. In addition to these actions, McCain voted to allow states to waive federal standards on renewable electricity use.

That same year, along party lines and in line with George W. Bush’s policies, McCain opposed a measure that would overhaul the nation’s energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for $14.1 billion in energy-related tax incentives – in the wake of the Enron scandal. As part of that bill, McCain’s opposition included a rejection of funding for ethanol production.

In June 2003, McCain voted a number of times against expanding the use of ethanol and other renewable energy as an alternative to gasoline. McCain even voted against a measure to eliminate the use of the carcinogenic pollutant methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and to apply tougher standards on air pollution. Again, on these matters, John McCain voted along partisan lines and in sync with George W. Bush’s position.
In 2004, McCain voted against a measure that would require that gasoline sold in or introduced into the US contain renewable fuel. He voted twice the following year to continue to allow the use of MTBE and against higher standards on air pollution caused by burning gasoline.
Again in 2005, when McCain had the chance to prove that he supported “alternate energy,” he failed to do so when he voted to slash the popular and successful Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program for farmers, cutting it from its current $23 million to only $3 million.

And in 2006, when it became clear that George W. Bush and the Republicans were on the losing side of the public debate on alternative energy investments, McCain still voted with his president and party against investments in renewable energy research and development in cellulosic ethanol, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydropower energy sources.

Yes Irene, he is pandering his ass off for votes…….what makes one think he has had a change in thinking?

Gore Prods The Young

Al Gore called Wednesday for “civil disobedience” to combat the construction of coal power plants without the ability to store carbon, Reuters reported.

The former vice president, whose efforts to raise awareness of global warming have made him the most prominent voice on that issue, made the comment during a session at the fourth annual Clinton Global Initiative in Manhattan.

“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore said, according to Reuters.

It wasn’t clear what specific action he intended by “civil disobedience,” which calls for the intentional violation of laws deemed to be unjust.

But first, he will have to educate the young on just what “civil disobedience” means.

Turning Crap Into Energy

San Antonio unveiled a deal on Tuesday that will make it the first U.S. city to harvest methane gas from human waste on a commercial scale and turn it into clean-burning fuel.

San Antonio residents produce about 140,000 tons a year of a substance gently referred to as “biosolids,” which can be reprocessed into natural gas, said Steve Clouse, chief operating officer of the city’s water system.

“You may call it something else,” Clouse said, but for area utilities, the main byproduct of human waste – methane gas – will soon be converted into natural gas to burn in their power plants.

The city approved a deal where Massachusetts-based Ameresco Inc will convert the city’s biosolids into natural gas, which could generate about 1.5 million cubic feet per day, he said.

Methane gas, which is a byproduct of human and organic waste, is a principal component of the natural gas used to fuel furnaces, power plants, and other combustion-based generators.

“The private vendor will come onto the facility, construct some gas cleaning systems, remove the moisture, remove the carbon dioxide content, and then sell that gas on the open market,” Clouse said.

Some communities are using methane gas harvested from solid waste to power smaller facilities like sewage treatment plants, but San Antonio is the first to see large-scale conversion of methane gas from sewage into fuel for power generation, he said.